tbat 


τ 
Hf 


hdniabe 
ry EY 8. 
sie 


a 
ΠῚ 
ἡ 


A ἃ 


νι δι eee eee 
bea tary 9 ΚΥΝῚ 
4 we 


wey 


Was 
Wate a 
ΧΗ ΚῊΝ 
VA We hota ΣᾺ ἐν ὅν 
ΛΝ 

οὐ 


“ὦ ‘ 


erie 
whys, 
UW asac ged 
Vl MWe ted 
᾿ 


: hs dy 
Re Corey y 
ὍΝ 4 iy 
᾿ mn 
baa rey 
Sa Po Oh Ete ee ein tory ae 
ΟΝ ty 


Beare 
RY 


3a 
aM hy 


ΡΝ 
ἫΝ 
ὃν, hale 

tated 
ta wid, 

Bey, 

Ale TN as PANS LN, 

hs ΣΝ, 


sa ae 
ΒΝ 


ἢ VEC: 
Pre ey 
Satta: ered 


wig λ σελ 

rsa 
Mpeg bate tig dehy 
Fa eae 


ae pa. 
ΜΝ 
τὰ 


ἐν μὴν ἢ 
A Bed τήρει μα ἐν 
LIne et a ear 


ey 
ΕΣ 
“Δ τς 

Yt tor 

WOOT Sy 


We Base 
Peat ee ra 
ΤῊ 


ΣῪ 
ἃ (ἣν ere 
ΟὟ 


awe 
nae 
nal 


Car 
Ane se) 
ΡΝ] 


Dhara τ, 
cad “τ ang 
rie Cay ee αν πεν 
7) “ , «αἰ ἢ δ 
ἜΝ 
ey 


uur 


τ τὴ τα 


hd 


SON ete 


fee nS 
wthaths nu ae 
At nce 
whats bab ἢ 
Fiat aes 


pike 
ΣΤΟΥΣ 


say Bh ot 
ramet weak 
A Reads bn ἢν μοι 
Meal Rs ts Macias “balboa: 
ΕΝ "δον 
Matte ὅς ὁ νὰς be τον 
i a ee 
Seating “i 
nite P 
δι 
HALE Taha τυ ἡσῳγὰς. 
Mines lt ttosieelt ait 
thea ttonatear bad ae Ma ihayas 
‘A the Sats Sa heatie= Anibal ele αι 
U Mabie aan, ΕΝ 
LAT ac ateaite hele 
Cas 


ri 
οἶνον art) 
4K SIMs 
Aiiabhatewageaeseb en 
ΟΡ ΜΕΝ, 
ROS ἡκῆ ον, 


ΜῊΝ 
ἘΝῚ 


hehe: 
SUNS hageachat® 


Nahar e We 
a hot Ne! 
Rare dy 


ἐν τως 


ἰδεῖν έτος: 
ΟΣ abate 


quate 
age 


iq 
¥ RYE? prgny 
Pa ας 


ΡΝ 
doer 


ete 
See 


“a Pe" meget yee 
ΔΗ 

ΚΗ αν 

a 


ΩΝ 
ey 


ais 
wea varia τανε τ" ge) 
sarong ies 
Ὁ grneneded® teen. 
Pe MeL he 
εἰδοχ να 
ΤῊΣ 


ΠῚ 
“ah tee e sd 


“asd 

APM gma tity ΝῊ 

Asatte tae cyte : 
Ph eater gs 

Eee 

rege 

Teer ar nent 

Fave wee veey ay oly 

Perr ea rae 

ἜΗΙ 


ἐς 
ΠΑΝ ΟΝ 

Fao UBL et τ Cte ea) 
po ἢ ip 

We σα} ae, 

fe ΠΝ 

ΠΣ 
ay, prions 

ty 
AD 


ΤΉ Ν᾽ 


St dei dae 
URC τὸ ee 
rita 
neve 
4 
death edu 
ΠΣ 


that Ye ay 
“ἢ ἡ why 


ΓΝ 
y 


4 

ΠΝ 
ΠῚ 

ἡ τά ἢ 


Ἧ Ἢ ῦ 


δὴν το 
; Gq 
Fee 
ht 
iF 


τ 


“ὯΝ, 
Pin ae" 
ee a αὮ 
Phat sus τα τοι 
BW OPE EF ary 
sisi 
nana 
rues 
iy 


eH IG adem saa ote 
ΡΥ. rt 
bw vbah 


Ἡ: 
2 
Bue aay 


Lean ae 
ΓΟ ΜΝ ΜῊ 


RARY OF PRI ΝΕῸΣ 


we 


Ps 
YEO! OgicAL SEM 


A 


COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


HOLY SCRIPTURES: 


CRITICAL, DOCTRINAL, AND HOMILETICAL, 


WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MINISTERS AND STUDENTS, 


BY 


JOHN PETER LANGE, D.D. 


IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF EMINENT EUROPEAN DIVINES. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, AND EDITED, WITH ADDITIONS ORIGINAL 
AND SELECTED, 
BY 4 
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D. 


IN CONNECTION WITH AMERICAN DIVINES OF VARIOUS EVANGELICAL DENOMINATIONS+ 


VOL. IX. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: CONTAINING THE EPISTLES 
GENERAL OF JAMES, PETER, JOHN AND JUDE. 


NEW YORK: 
CHARLES SCRIBNER, & CO., 654 BROADWAY. 
1867. 


THE 


EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


BY 


J. P.. LANGE, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BONN, 
AND 


J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF UTRECHT, 


TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND REVISED GERMAN EDITION, WITH 
ADDITIONS ORIGINAL AND SELECTED, 


BY 


J. ISIDOR MOMBERT, D.D., 


RECTOR OF ST. JAMES’S CHURCH, LANCASTER, PA. 


NEW YORK: 
CHARLES SCRIBNER, ἃ 60., 654 BROADWAY. 
1867. 


ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867, by 
CHARLES SCRIBNER, 


In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District 
of New York. 


Weeeeneceetaneereemenonsscs sence ~ 


Tue New York Printinc Company, 
81, 83, and 85 Centre Street, 
New York, 


Stereotyped by 


JAS. B. RODGERS, 
PHILADELPHIA, 


rene none ceeenneceeeeweneeee τον ας 


TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


In the preparation of this Commentary on the Catholic Epistles no pains have been spared 
to make it useful to Anglo-American readers. More than three years of labour have been 
bestowed upon it; and the translation of several Epistles, originally made from the earlier Ger- 
man editions, has been carefully revised by the /atest. The addenda are numerous, and have 
entailed a vast amount of work. They will speak for themselves. It is hoped that the readings 
of the Codex Siniaticus, uniformly embodied in this Commentary, the constant reference to the 
best English and other divines, ancient and modern, and the extracts from their comments on this 
section of the New Testament, will place the reader in possession of every element necessary to 
the understanding of these Epistles. 

I have endeavoured faithfully to comply with the general principles regulating the transla- 
tion; and if the reproduction of the style of four different writers presented peculiar difficulties, 
it is gratifying to me that none of the Catholic Epistles in Lange’s Commentary have ever before 
been translated into English. The diversity of style, to which I have just referred, will be espe- 
cially apparent in the Introduction and the Critical and Exegetical portions of the Epistles of St. 
James, from the pen of Dr. Lange. He has an extraordinary genius for word-coining, and some 
of his combinations are so graphic, telling and original, that I have deemed it proper to reproduce 
them in English for the reason that these somewhat grotesque and strange-looking words have 
often the effect of stimulating the mental activity of the reader. The context is generally their 
commentary; where this was not the case in the original, due recourse has been had to periphrastic 
explanations, 

On many questions I differ from the authors, and the addenda are mostly made to remove 
onesidedness of statement. In numerous instances, however, I hesitated to express my dissent, 
because I did not think it fair to carry on a controversy with them in the pages of their own 
works. I am only responsible for the matter in brackets, [ 7, marked M. 

May the Divine blessing rest upon my humble endeavours to aid in the elucidation of this 
important and interesting section of the Inspired Volume! 

To the reader I would say: “ Zrrores pauci fuerint si forte libello,—errores paucos tollat 
amica manus |’? 

J. Istpor Momserr. 

Lancaster, Pa., April 1, 1867. 


ey Tey 
f 


eh 
“ oa hi 


a ᾿ 


Δ, 


αν # ΠΝ 


έεη 


Γ 


pies ον μι 
ΝΜ" ed ae ΝΣ f 
* yt Wp WW nie: ΜῈ, ἐξ oleae 
ly é fey F ao νι diy ay Ἷ ΙΑ ᾿ r f οἱ Ὶ Ὡ 
ἘΝ pow Ἢ " ae ' we A Lp fe Ἢ " δ Ton ? δὶ Ἔν ane Ὗ ia ‘ op Ν 


τ iT ye ne oes [No tne Masi i) ay wars 4; 


ἮΝ Av ee war ants: arth ἐν fleas ny Ἢ 
ἐλάαν ἡ Aaah Mahar atest PAM te 


4 Wed: i, hy wh ipo τῳ ; 
π᾿ Ἂν a ns 7 ict ie ery a) pie 


ak ἫΝ , Py . heaton πῆς 
᾿ μὴ» B aby oh eae ψ τ ον lili ΛΝ ΤῊ 5 
regen duet. Ce ee er ΠΝ 
Sabin natn λδ ὡς ican! the ἣν 
jaya A it Vapi: i tevin! | 
sate i pe’ Jen ison δ, ii Nath! oo ad ae a sit ΣῊΝ A 3 
bai ais alt es ΠΝ ἣν a a ses as rrr 
i i el hat ᾿ sigan ey i “αὶ ἀδιία τα “tg «ae etme of 


bul 
σὰ μὰν ee tite Na dae oy Aapnoose | 
νι γα μνμνν". Αι μιόψ tasdeagies + cee 
i see Se re Aleta a8 οὐ χα sha’ 
qe bive ‘ mae Lies he 4 ιν ὦ ἔν ’ et 


Sant ἢ f el ΕΣ ΤΥ i Ἂ 
ΠΣ πων οὐ Sid αϑάύανς 


iy nS 


νι Ah 


A ἢ τ ie ; ΝΣ be TAGs ᾿ de 
Α - “ δ ἐπ * ᾿ Ὃ » ἴ; sae’ i | 
sgt FE ONE as (int oA RE Men te eS er GE ra 
ἕω + γον ᾿ 9) dite aps Wi ΠΣ ᾿ ἊΨ» ᾿ ᾿ Ata, bry — ΝΥ ϊ ΝΣ ἤν 


τ ' 
ay ᾿ 4 “a 
; ; ‘ 
7 . 
7 Ἢ 5 ( 
ὦ ᾿᾿ we - Φ = ᾧ 
i Ay r AN aki ᾿ ae J 
g “we . PALS > 
᾿ " ~~ P ἢ gr; a = ; ἢ. 
A } a j s eon “ ὲ ἢ 
a0 ee εν: ie 
1 } ᾿ ; 4 if 
id tS ew ae Γ ᾿ 
᾿ “ 7 ‘ “ ΝᾺ Ῥ 
ou εἴ, γῆ 7 ; a iS or > nl lat 
er Jn “ἱ ; 
δ: ¥ et) call | ΠΡ a ey aL 


Dh LAWN G Es 


PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION OF JAMES. 


Tu1s Commentary on the Epistle of James is the joint work of my respected friend, Dr. van 
Oosterzee and myself. The Introduction, the translation and the Critical and Exegetical notes, 
are my work; the Doctrinal and Homiletical sections have been supplied by Dr. van Oosterzee. 
I heartily thank my friend and collaborator for the cheerful and valuable help he has thus far 
bestowed upon this Commentary. 

With respect to the sections undertaken by me, there were especially two reasons which made 
the work one of peculiar interest to me. In the first place, I was anxious to improve this oppor- 
tunity to testify against the old Ebionito-apocryphal fiction of non-apostolic brothers of the Lord, 
who were, at the same time, held in high Apostolic repute. In the second place I desired to 
express my conviction that the Epistle of James (like the First Epistle of Peter and the Epistle 
to the Hebrews) cannot be sufficiently appreciated unless the history of the world, at the time 
when it was written, be constantly referred to, viz., the beginnings of that great Jewish revolu- 
tion against the Romans, which, with its national sympathies, was, to the Jews in general, a 
great temptation to become hardened, and to the Jewish Christians an equal temptation to apos- 
tasy. This historical reference, hitherto neglected, in my opinion, can only prove advantageous 
to the exposition of this Epistle. In this sense I have been working; may the fundamental 
thought of my work be attested by blessed results. 

I only add that I did not expect that my honoured collaborator would forthwith apply in 
the Doctrinal and Homiletical sections the aforesaid points of view, which have still to fight for 
recognition among theologians. On the contrary I thought it most desirable that the universal 
side of the Epistle should be fully developed in the Doctrinal and Homiletical sections without 
special reference to its historical points; and, indeed, the independence of my friend, led me to 
expect an execution of his work carried out in this sense. The Commentary, as a whole, has 
doubtless gained in allsidedness by this recognition of the universal by the side of the historicai 
point of view. 


i at * Ὃ 
ae He Fel p aeedlinta ted yearn AP μ᾿ 


i bal oP ee a ι Mav? ἢ ᾿ μὴ am ; Why 2 a ἡ 


ἵ᾿ ‘ ee 


mow Pree ‘i eer Ἢ ΩΣ a ἘΠ A ee ate ὧν 

Wheto ooh hives Fie. ἣν bie Ἡ ἐν bgt bait Νὰ en stab ΣῊΝ 
eS hee ΓΝ DM ay ΠΡ $0 baw Sati [Raters ia! 

Ὁ aide tie et ala Oil twat ae ΠΡ ΤΥ, Ἂ 


δὰ “δ é Ν. rare a wis a4 ja 
9 Ι > rt * ; τ ~~ iat ων , “ἢ δ ἧς 
“ἢ BARE ν᾽ "ἢ ὧν, " δι ΝΣ Δ aed 
ΤΥ δὰ rod νῶν Figura τὴ ie runke ἊΣ 
° ᾿ 4 ch 
Bre ety Me wa ee VET Τὴ» ΩΣ dda head 
᾿ φ- ἣν ΝΜ ἡ 


Pou 4 ΥΩ gs Wo babi | 
' ΚΝ At ean’ Ws Seite | 
᾿ ὃ aay ἮΨ ᾿ξ i Ὁ. mera ἢ 
emo re Che Ae if eee | 
* Sale: dingy yin Mires iy ἘΝ ad i 
sin wees adh aby te: Sit. 
{i any 0h A Pd ae yi tte ἡ A i 
τ aed) Lie τ ΓΝ ἜΜ ΤΠ 
᾿ ; if τον ) 2 
a va? ll 
bi cata δὶ Ἔν er 8 Ν ΝΥ. μ᾿; m5 
, wid q ι ἢ “Ἰ mes ὌΝ Εν. 1 
ν Ong Sekar aan. 


sash ῥὶ ied 


ἐν Way Pie de 
poe ap wi ἧι 


; ort } i LAr | pened 
wD Ti tary a Prod rte 
ἢ al Rei | i \y 
> ν΄ με Ὁ Saha 


᾽ν Fah 


171: DAN GE's 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION OF JAMES. 


My respected friend and codperator, Dr. yan Oosterzee, has charged me to represent him 
also in this Preface to the second edition. The first thing to be said imports the assurance that 
each has carefully, revised, and here and there rectified or improved his respective part, without 
subjecting the orginal shape of the work to unnecessary changes. 

Since the publication of the first edition Dr. van Oosterzee has been called and translated to 
Utrecht in the capacity of Professor ordinarius of Theology; he himself has thus occasioned 
the first and very gratifying change on the title-page. Another call, namely, the removal 
cf our friend, the Rev. Chantepie de la Saussaye, from Leyden to Rotterdam, had, alas, the 
consequence that the note on page 5 of the first edition [not inserted in the translation for this 
very reason—M.] could not be fulfilled, according to which he had undertaken the preparing of 
the Johannean Epistles, hut found himself for an indefinite period prevented to carry his task 
into effect. But, by the help of God, said section of this Commentary passed from one compe- 
tent hand to another. Our whole work, moreover, has lately made considerable progress; 
the publishers, as well as tne authors, may look back upon the road already traversed, with 
cheerful gratitude, and forward to the goal with increasing hope. 

With reference to exegesis there have appeared since the publication of the first edition in 
1862, four theological novelties m our field of labour, which deserve to be noticed: The second 
edition of the Commentary on James, from the pen of Dr. Huther, appeared in 1863; last year 
the third edition of the respective section of de Wette’s Handbook, prepared by Dr. Brickner; 
in the same year also a new commentary, of considerable extent, on this Epistle, from the pen of 
the lately deceased venerable Professor Bouman of Utrecht, published after his death by his sons 
under the title of “Hermanni Bowman, Theol. Dr. et in Acad. Rhenotraject. Prof. Ord. Com- 
mentarius perpetuus in Jacobi Epistolom post. mortem auctoris editus. Trajectiad Rhenum apud 
Kemink et Filium, 1865.” To these Commentaries must be added the publication of the Codex 
Sinaiticus. ; 

The second edition of Huther’s Commentary on the Epistle of James, having been concluded 
as early as October, 1862, has not led to reciprocal discussions between it and our exegetical work. 
Interesting is Huther’s discussion with his reviewer, Professor Frank of Erlangen, introduced 
into the preface owing to the circumstance that his reviewer misconstrued the statement that 
Paul also teaches a consideration of works in the final judgment. Dr. Brickner has referred to 
our work both in the Introduction and in his exposition. The circumstance, that we could not 
move that highly-esteemed theologian to pronounce in favour of the radical modifications of the 
exegesis of this Epistle, in consequence of the definite historical construction which we have put 
on it, does not disturb us or fill us with doubt; it must also be borne in mind that he had to deal 
with the revision of a book which, as the preparation of a mandatary work, imposed upon him 
the most rigid self-constraint. In opposition to our statement that the author designed to fortify 
the Jewish Christians against the already roused revolutionary spirit of the Jews, without in- 
cautiously drawing the impending revolution in over-distinct colours, Briickner simply contends 


x DR. LANGE’S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION OF JAMES. 


that then the “political fanaticism” ought at least to have been touched in the Epistle. In 
reply we have to observe, that it is characteristic of the apostolical wisdom of the author to 
oppose political fanaticism only in its religious motives and roots. These motives and roots, 
however, appear plain enough by replies to the following questions: 1. Which was the greatest 
common cause of all the twelve tribes of the Jews in part believing, in part still receptive of 
belief, during the sixth decade after the birth of Christ? 2. Which could be the manifold com- 
mon temptations which through patience and steadfastness they were to change into all joy? Or, 
to be still briefer, which was at that time the common great trial of faith of the twelve tribes ? 


And wherein had, consequently, the common proof to consist? 8. Why does the Apostle, after 


the general warning against representing the general temptation as a temptation from God, 7. 6. 
as a provocation, pass at once to the condemnation of wrath? 4. And what, in particular, is 
the import of the warning in chapter iii. 13 sqq., which even progresses to the naming of 
ἀκαταστασία as the result of ζῆλος and ἐριθεία Similar questions arise from each separate section 
of our Epistle in opposition to the non-historical construction of our Epistle as being merely a 
collection of edifying exhortations to good moral conduct, but where it is anything bat edifying 
that the author straightway assumes that the poor were disregarded at worship ard otherwise 
neglected in all the twelve tribes of the dispersion, and that the rich Christians were guilty of 
conduct that he felt justified or rather constrained to utter a woe on them. We reiterate the 
expression of our conviction, that the non-appreciation of the historical motives and prophetico- 
symbolical phraseology of the Kpistle leaves its great one fundamental thoug)t well-nigh un- 
opened, and this is proved by the extraordinary misconstructions which have been put upon it. 

Bouman, the venerable veteran of Dutch theology, who left his Commentary in manuscript, 
like a testament, to the care of his sons, has first of all gladdened us by the decisiveness and 
scientific force with which he represents in the Introduction the view taat the author of our 
Epistle could have been none other than the Apostle Jacobus Alphaci. May this example be a 
sign that theological science begins to turn away from the all-confounding and self-confused pre- 
judice, that a non-apostolical James had risen to the highest apostolical repute in the apostoli- 
cal Church, because he was a brother of the Lord according to the flesh, who at a late period 
became converted to the faith. We discover also a welcome agreement of the author with this 
Commentary in the assumption that the Epistle, though primarily addressed to Jewish Chris- 
tians, had also the secondary design of converting the receptive Jews to the faith; and that this 
circumstance accounts also for the prophetical colouring of the Epistle. His attaching particular 
importance to the parallelism between the Apostle as the head of the Church at Jerusalem and 
the High priest with reference to the Jewish dispersion, appears to us as not unfounded; but the 
hypothesis that the Epistle dates from the earliest time of the propagation of Christianity, does 
not induce us to change the view expressed by us in this respect in this Commentary, or to fortify 
it by the production of new arguments. The exposition itself resembles variously the Scholia- 
form, and moves in the track of the customary general and abstract construction of the Epistle, 
takes, however, in a learned and independent manner, cognizance of modern exegetes, and mani- 
fests also with reference to the Codex Sinwaiticus a free critical judgment. 

The readings of the Sinaiticus, wherever they appeared to be important, have mostly been 
added to the critical notes. 

May the joint preparation of this Epistle continue to be blessed in promoting the vital 
appreciation of the glorious totality of the Scripture as the Word of God, which appreciation 
must be consummated in the belief that all the writings of Paul and of James are in perfect 
agreement with one another, and with the whole Scripture, 


THE EDITOR, . 
Bonn, January 6, 1866. 


THE 


EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


ΠΝ ΠΟ UC ΤΙ ΟΝ: 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES BEING THE FIRST AMONG THE SO-CALLED CATHOLIC 
EPISTLES, IT IS NECESSARY TO FOUND THE PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION TO 
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES ON A MORE GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE CATHOLIC 
EPISTLES. 


J. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN GENERAL. 
1. THE TERM “CATHOLIC EPISTLES” AND THEIR STATUS (GERM. Bestand). 


The term “Catholic Epistles” embraces the seven Apostolic Epistles, which, besides the 
Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews added to them, are found in the Canon of the 
New Testament; namely the Epistle of James, the two Epistles of Peter, the three Epistles of 
John and the Epistle of Jude. 

According to the primary and original meaning of ἐπιστολὴ καϑολικῆ, it denotes an encyclical 
writing, which as such was primarily addressed not to individual Churches or persons, but to a 
larger ecclesiastical sphere, to a number of Churches. In this sense Clement of Alexandria 
(Stromat. iv.) calls the Epistle of the Apostles and of the Church at Jerusalem addressed to 
Christian congregations according to Acts xv. 22-29 an ἐπιστολὴ καϑολική. So Origen (contra 
Celsum i. 63) calls the Epistle of Barnabas, the contents of which characterize it an encyclical 
writing, καϑολική. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 18) reports that Apollonius reproached Themison, 
the Montanist, with having written in imitation of the Apostle (probably John) an ἐπιστολὴ Ka- 
ϑολική. This shows that the universal character of the First Epistle of John was designated by 
the term ‘Catholic’ as early as the time of Apollonius, that is: in the beginning of the third cen- 
tury. Even Origen applies this designation in this sense to the First Epistle of John (in the 
Commentary of John), to the First Epistle of Peter (according to Euseb. vi. 25), and to the 
Epistle of Jude, but in passages which are found only ina Latin translation (Comment. in epist. 
ad Roman.). In the time of Eusebius, the term ‘Catholic’ was already applied to the whole 
group of Epistles, which we call Catholic. “James,” he says “Gg said to have written the first 
of the Catholic Epistles” and then adverts to “the seven Epistles called Catholic.” (Hist. Heel. 
ii. 23). The meaning “Epistles more general as to their contents and object,” which Guerike 
considers to be primary, could only be secondary, because it generally resulted from the nature 
of the encyclical writing; for the very first Catholic Epistle (Acts xv.) was not general as to its 
object and contents. There was but one step from changing the originally somewhat general 
character of these circular letters which assigned to them a more enlarged sphere of the Church, 
into one altogether general. Thus the Apostolical Epistle (Acts xv.) was already destined to 
apply to the whole Gentile-Christian Church, while the Epistle of James and probably that to 
the Hebrews were designed for the whole Jewish-Christian Church. In this sense, Oecumenius 
(Prolegom. in Epist. Jacob.) declared that they had been called ‘Catholic,’ inasmuch as they had 


4 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


not been addressed to a particular people or city, like the Epistles of Paul, but to believers in 
general (as a whole, καϑόλου), whether to Jewish Christians of the dispersion or even to all Chris- 
tians, as members of the same faith. 

In the Western Church the term ¢pistole canonice instead of catholice obtained great currency 
from the time of Junilius and Cassiodorus (see Credner, Jntrod. p. 570). That this could not have 
been the original sense follows decisively from the fact that Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. ii, 23) applies 
the term ‘Catholic’ also to the Epistles of Dionysius of Corinth to the Churches at Lacedzemon, 
Athens, etc. But Eusebius probably combined also here with the idea of the encyclical character 
the idea of the universal, for he remarked concerning said Dionysius and his Epistle, “that he was 
most useful to all (ἅπασιν absolutely) in the Catholic Epistles which he addressed to the Churches.” 
Yet Eusebius gave already occasion that the idea of general reception or canonicity was com- 
bined with the idea of partial or entire universality by saying of the First Epistle of Peter: “The 
First Epistle of Peter is universally acknowledged, but the Acts of Peter, the Gospel according - 
to Peter, the Preaching and the Revelation of Peter are not among the Catholic writings.” 
[ Hist. Eccl. iii, 3—M.].—It is evident that neither the idea of universality nor that of canonicity 
could be applied absolutely to the Catholic Epistles as contrasted with those of Paul. If they 
were called universal, the reference was to their more general tenor, if they were called canonical, 
the reference was at once to their more general contents and to their direct general authority, 
without any intention of seeking thereby to weaken the less direct universality and canonicity of 
the Pauline Epistles. 

Besides this definition of the term ‘Catholic Epistles,’ another has arisen in modern times, 
Hug in his Introduction to the Writings of the New Testament ii. p. 429 observes as follows: 
“ After the Gospels and the Acts had been referred to one division and the writings of St. Paul 
to another, there were still remaining the writings of different authors which might again 
be collected under one head and had to be distinguished by a name of their own. They 
might most aptly be called καϑολικὸν σύνταγμα of the Apostles and the writings contained 
in it κοιναί and καϑολικαί, these two words being frequently used as synonymes by Greek 
writers.” In proof of this statement, Hug brings forward the declaration of Clement of 
Alexandria concerning the Apostolical Epistle, Acts xv. 23, namely, the Catholic Epistle in 
which all the Apostles took part. But τῶν ἀποστόλων πάντων has not the meaning which 
Hug discovers in it. He then cites the judgment of Eusebius that the “First Epistle of 
Peter is universally acknowledged, but the Acts of Peter, the Gospel according to Peter, the 
Preaching and Revelation of Peter are not among the Catholic writings.” This, according to 
Hug, denotes the class to which the Apostolical writings in general were then referred. But the 
citation from Eusebius established rather the contrast between writings acknowled and writings 
not acknowledged. The circumstance, finally, that the Epistle of Barnabas is called Catholic, he 
tries to account for by the assertion that Barnabas also was sometimes called an Apostle. But 
the true explanation must be sought in its contents, for in the time of Origen, the Epistle of 
Barnabas was neither acknowledged as Apostolical nor as Canonical. In the sense of Hug, it has 
also been attempted to draw a parallel between the origin of the Canon of the Old Testament 
and that of the Canon of the New. For it is maintained that as in the formation of the Canon 
of the Old Testament, after the Thorah and the Prophets had been collected under their respec- 
tive heads, the remaining sacred writings, in general, were collected under the head of Hagio- 
grapha, so, in the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, after the Gospels and the Pauline 
Epistles (εὐαγγέλιον and ἀπόστολος) had been collected, the remaining sacred writings of the New 
Testament were collected under the head “Catholic Epistles,” ὁ, e. writings of the New Testament 
in general (καθόλου) .---- Αραγὺ from possible objections to that view of the Old Testament, it is self- 
evident that in that case the reference ought to have been to Catholic writings and not to 
Catholic Zpistles, and that then both the Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews ought to 
have been included in the last-named class, 

Credner gives the following natural account of the old arrangement of the Canon of the 
New Testament: “ First historical notices of Jesus (the Gospels); then such notices of the Apos- 
tles; then general (catholic) Epistles of the Apostles; then Epistles to separate congregations 


I. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN GENERAL. 5 
eee ee ee 
and to individuals (the Epistles of Paul). This primary arrangement originated in a clear per- 
ception of what was collected and why it was collected.” 

But the ideal principle of division has evidently been modified by historical relations. A 
division purely made with reference to subject-matter, would require the Epistle to the Ephesians 
and that to the Hebrews to be included among the Catholic Epistles, the second and third Epis- 
tles of John to be excluded from them. The latter, however, were considered as supplemental 
to the first Epistle of John, and the former retained by the great mass of the Pauline Epistles, as 
it were, by attraction. 


2. THE IMPORT OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


~The Catholic Epistles, comprehending only a small part of the New Testament 
Canon, are of the utmost importance on account of the completeness and fulness of that part. 
As the four Gospels are designed mutually to complement each other, so here the types of the 
doctrine of James, Peter and John, complement the type of the doctrine of Paul. By this com- 
plementing they preserve the Christian consciousness from a one-sided culture of the Pauline 
expression; by the variety and fulness of their modes of treatment and expression, they guarantee 
the fulness of Christian cognition and the full vitality and motion of the churchly spirit. Paul 
has been called the Apostle of faith; John the Apostle of love, Peter the Apostle of hope. This 
is a very imperfect mode of distinction, because, to name only one reason, it is exclusively Pauline; 
it denotes, nevertheless, the riches of the Apostolical complements furnished by the Catholic 
Epistles. These Epistles, moreover, are highly important as mirroring the condition of the “ 
Church during the latter period of the Apostolic age. In this respect they constitute an indis- 
pensable connecting-link between the Acts and the Pauline Epistles (excepting the Pastoral 
Epistles to which they are intimately related) on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and the 
Apostolical Fathers on the other—While in the Book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles, we have 
the exhibition of the external diversity of the Churches which were springing up every where, 
as yet predominating over the certainly existing internal unity, the encyclical character of most 
of these Epistles (as also of that to the Hebrews) gives already greater prominence to the con- 
sciousness of a full, and moreover, of an external unity of the Church. ‘This holds also good of 
the Epistle of James, for he addresses Christendom of Jewish origin not as an Ebionite Jewish- _ 
Christian but as an Apostle. These Epistles moreover acquaint us with the further develop- 
ments of Church-life in the Apostolic age; with the springing up of the Ebionite and Gnostic 
weeds among the wheat of pure doctrine, and on the other hand, with the development of the 
more distinct, the dogmatically more conscious Apostolic and church-testimony. Ebionitism is 
perfectly drawn in symbolical characters not sufficiently appreciated—in the Epistle of James 
(ch. ii. 2, etc.), in the first Epistle of John (ch. ii. 22, ete.), and probably also in the third of 
John (v. 9); Gnostic libertinism, on the other hand, is condemned in the Epistle of Jude, in the 
second of Peter (ch. ii.), and in 1 Jno. iv. 1, etc. With respect to ecclesiastical constitution, our 
Hpistles confirm the identity of the Presbyterate and the Episcopate; but the dignity of the 
presbyter-bishop becomes more distinct in the position taken by Jude, James, John (2 dno. 1) 
and Peter. That is, we have to deal with Apostolical men who, as leading presbyters, had even 
then entered upon close relations with specific ecclesiastical circles; this applies at least to 
James and John. We also obtain hints of the form of worship (Jude 12; 2 Pet. 11. 13), and of a 
certain method and gradation in the presentation of Christian doctrine (1 Jno. 11. 12, etc.). 

With respect to the relation of the different New Testament types of doctrine, so richly 
represented in the Catholic Epistles, we take for granted that in this field a conflict of doctrine 
is impossible but that differences of doctrine, various types, ὁ. 6. individual views, conceptions and 
modes of statement are necessary. All the Apostles are agreed in that they see in Christianity 
the New Testament, that is: 1, the fulfilment and therein the harmonious contrast of the Old 
Testament, the completed religion of revelation; 2, the fulfilment and contrast of all incomplete 
religions in general, the perfect religion absolutely; 3, consequently they see in the New Testa- 
ment the primeval, even the everlasting Testament, the everlasting religion which, while it must 
branch out into the two zons of struggling development and of glorious consummation, can 


6 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


nevermore be followed by another religion. In these respects James is not by a hair’s breadth 
less evangelical (German: neutestamentlich) than Paul and John. 

The New Testament, according to all the New Testament types of doctrine, is the fulfilment, 
the real form, therefore, of the religion which the Old Testament had traced in the symbolical 
shadow. 

Christianity is the fulfilment of the law of the Old Testament, hence the royal law of love, 
the law of liberty, of spiritual life, of unity; such is the teaching of James. 

Christianity is the fulfilment of the theocracy of the Old Testament, hence the real kingdom 
of God, the real royal priesthood, which, first a kingdom of suffering, finds its consummation in 
a kingdom of glory; such is the teaching of Peter. 

Christianity is the fulfilment of the old Covenant, of the sacraments of the Old Testament, 
hence the real circumcision and regeneration, hence the real passover, the real redemption and the 
real new human life as the principle of a real new world of the resurrection, the New Covenant 
of faith and the new covenant-jubilee of the communion of faith; such is the teaching of Paul. 

Christianity is the fulfilment of the worship of the Old Testament, hence the real eternal 
Divine worship of the completed word, of the completed Sabbath, of completed sacrifice and of 
the completed festive-church (Germ: Fest-Gemeinde.); such fas following Paul—the 
teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

Christianity is the fulfilment of all the symbolism of the Old Tedtamnent, and of all the sym- 
bolism of primitive monotheism (Germ.- Urmonotheismus) in general, on which the Old Testament 
is founded, hence the real new world in the development of its glorification (Germ. Verkldrung) 
by the Personal Word in the threefold lustre of real light, real love and real life; such is the 
teaching of John. 

The Epistles of Peter (on the character of Peter see my Apostol. Age, I., p. 354, and the Article 
“ Petrus,” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedia,) are connected with the speeches of Peter in Acts, and 
the Petrine Gospel of Mark. They form a connecting link between the doctrine of James and 
that of Paul. 

The fundamental idea of the First EpistLe oF Peter is ch. i. 3, 4, the regeneration of Chris- 
tians out of suffering unto an incorruptible inheritance (Land of inheritance and kingdom of inheri- 
tance). The division is as follows: 

Introduction: The new hope of the spiritual Israel flowing from the resurrection of Christ 
from the dead, ch. i. 1-3. The theme already specified, ch. i. 4. 

I. Believers destined for this blessedness of the inheritance, ch. i. 5-9. 

Il. The Old Testament pointing to this inheritance, v. 10-12. 

III. The pilgrimage of the spiritual Israel to this goal. Their sanctification. Their re- 
demption. Their brotherly love on the ground of their common heavenly descent by means of 
regeneration, eh, 1. 13-25, 

IV. The New Covenant. The preparation of the New Testament. Christ the living stone, 
antitype of Sinai. Christians, the new theocracy ch. ii. 1-10. 

Y. The wilderness-pilgrims (v. 11) and their behaviour towards pagans; a. according to 
the relations of the pagans, v. 12-17; ὃ. according to the relations of the Christians. The beha- 
viour of enslaved men (males); that of wives, especially in mixed marriages, ch. ii. 18— iii. 2. 

VI. The behaviour of Christians among themselves, ch. iii. 3-8. 

VII. Their behaviour towards persecutors, ch. 111. 9-22. 

VIII. Readiness and blessedness of suffering, ch. iv. 

IX. The proper relation of the leaders of the flock of God and those who are led, especially 
as the proper preparation against the adversary, ch. v. 1-9. Conclusion, Benediction and Salu- 
tation, v. 10-14. 

But compare the First Epistle of Peterin this commentary. As to its literature, we have 
still to mention Schott’s commentary, which has recently appeared. Erlangen 1861. 

With respect to the Seconp Epistte or Perer, we refer to our work, “The Apostolical 
Age” (Das Apostolische Zeitalter, Vol. 1., p. 156). We continue to maintain the hypothesis there 
advanced, that the Epistle of Jude according to its contents was at a later period inserted in 


I. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN GENERAL. 7 


the original Epistle of Peter." The fundamental idea of the Second Epistle of Peter is this: 
Christians are promised to become partakers of the Divine nature by the knowledge of Christ’s 
glory and virtue; hence they are charged to make their godliness [evoéBeca—M.] sure by persever- 
ance, ch. 1. 8, 4. Conformably thereto is the Introduction, which serves the purpose of wishing 
and recommending them to grow in the knowledge of God andin Christ, ch. i. 1-3. Why this is 
necessary is shown by the argument.—The above mentioned theme, ch. 1. 3, 4. 

DevetopmeEnt: I, They are to grow therein practically by the development of their Chris- 
tian life, ch. 1. 5-9, 

II. Their growth in knowledge is necessary, because otherwise they would fall through 
stumbling, v. 10-12. 

III. Such a stumbling might be occasioned to them by his impending departure (his martyr- 
death) and lead to their doubting the promise of Christ’s advent, v. 13-19. (But prophecy is 
established as the word of the true prophets of God contrasted with the false prophets who shall 
arise, ch, 1. 20—i11. 2). 

IV. The coming of those who deny the advent of Christ, ch. ili. 3, 4. 

Y. Refutation of their denial, v. 5-13. Conclusion, with a reference to misinterpreted say- 
ings of Paul, concerning the advent of Christ, v. 14-18. 

Tur EpistLe or JupE (on the character of Jude, see my Life of Jesus, II., 149, 699; 
Apostolical Age, I., p. 364.—Compare the Epistle of Jude in this work) may be regarded as the 
forerunner of the apocalyptic descriptions of Gnostic Antinomianism (2 Pet. 11.; Rev. 11.6; vv. 14 
15). The type of its doctrine and the symbolical mode of its expression connect it with the 
Epistle of James. Its more definite analogies in the Old Testament as revelations of the judg- 
ment are the books of Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. On the Apostolicity of its 
Author compare our special introduction to James. 

The fundamental idea of the Epistle of Jude: contending for the true faith against the false 
belief or unbelief of the (Gnostic) Anomists, v. 3. The introduction pursuant to this theme: a 
word addressed to those who continue preserved in Christ vv. 1, 2. The theme, vy. 3. Division of 
the short Epistle. 

I. The real character of the Anomists: turning the grace of God into wantonness, v. 4. 

II. The ancient types of these Anomists and of their judgment; a, the people of Israel in 
the wilderness; 0, the rebel-angels; c, the Sodomites, vv. 5-7. 

III. More definite characteristics. Fanaticism unfolding on the one hand into voluptuous- 
ness, on the other, into contempt of authority, vv. 8-10. The development of their ruin, y. 11. 
Their pseudo-Christian and anti-Christian character, vv. 12, 13. 

IV. Their coming foretold as to the fundamental trait of their character, viz., murmuring 
against revelation; a, by Enoch, the most ancient prophet (according to Jewish tradition, to 
which the book of Enoch also must be supposed to have been indebted); ὃ, by the Apostles of 
Christ, v. 14-20. 

V. Exhortation to proper behaviour towards them; a, defensive, vv. 20, 21; ὁ, polemical, v. 
22,23. Conclusion. Benediction for the preservation of the readers and doxology, vv. 24, 25. 

THE EpistLEs oF JoHN join with the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the last type of the deve- 
lopments of Pauline doctrine. They form in conjunction with his Gospel and Apocalypse the 
last and most completed type of New Testament doctrine. On the unity of this grand trilogy, 
compare my History of the Apostolic Age, 11., p. 571. 

The much misunderstood unity of the three Epistles of John, flows from the relation of the 
second and third Epistles to the theme and division cf the first. For the theme of the first Epistle 
is not, as is commonly supposed, communion with God through Christ, but the mutual com- 
munion of Christians based upon that communion. The true communion of the Church: based 
upon walking in the light, ch. i. 7. The Introduction leads to this. The end of all Apostolical 
preaching is to bring about Apostolic communion as a medium of communion with the Father 
and the Son. For historically the communion with God is made to depend on communion with 


11 did not know at the first advancing of my hypothesis, that Bertholdt had already considered the second chapter 
as an interpolation. 


8 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


the Apostles; but then the communion of Christians among themselves as a communion of 
perfect joy (the κοινωνία-επἐκκλησία) is made to depend on communion with the Lord. Hence: 


I. The communion of God and Christ on which the communion of Christians is made to 
depend: a, permanent reconciliation; 6, confession of sins; ¢, faith in the Advocate; d, the 
keeping of His commandments; 6, that is, of His word; f, ¢. e. of the commandment of brotherly 
love; g, formation of this behaviour in fathers, young men and children; ὦ, the rooting of this 
behaviour in the love of God, as contrasted with the love of the world, ch. i. 7—ii. 17. 

II. The communion of Christians as contrasted with the Ebionito-Antichristian denial of 
_ Christ and hatred of the brethren, evidenced by the abandonment of communion, ch. ii. 18—iii. 
24. The Antichristians; a, seceded; b, denial that Jesus is the Christ, the Son; c, exhortation 
to perseverance in faith; d, the protection of the anointing (with the Holy Ghost); e, the dignity’ 
of adoption [ Kindschaft=state of being the children of God—M.]; ἡ, the demonstration of adop- 
tion: righteousness, brotherly love. 

III. Maintenance of purity of communion as contrasted with Gnostic spirits who deny 
Christ having come in the flesh, ch. iv. 1-6. 

IV. The vitalizing of the communion of Christians among each other, ch. iv. 7—yv. 12; a, 
The source of brotherly love: God is Love; ὃ, Maintenance of this love by brotherly love, by 
the Holy Ghost, by the confession of Christ; ¢, the perfecting of this love in joyfulness before 
God; in rejoicing in the brethren as God-born; d, Test of true brotherly love by the love of God 
as evidenced by faith in the Son of God. Conclusion. Exhortation to faith; to prayer; to 
intercession for erring brethren; to confidence; to watchfulness against deifying the world, ch. 
y. 12-21. 

Now since the First EpistLe oF JonN manifestly sets forth the law of the life of Christian 
communion, his two lesser Epistles are clearly corollaries of the first, the second (to the κυρίᾳ) 
warning against a lax loosing of the limits of communion, and the third (to Gaius) contending on 
the other hand against a fanatical narrowing of its large-hearted and wide-reaching sphere. 

Tue EpistLE To THE HEBREWS, being so variously connected with the Catholic Epistles 
and more particularly with the Epistle of James, we also add a brief notice on its .construc- 
tion. Its fundamental idea is: Christ, the fulfiller of the revelation of the Old Testament as the 
Son of God, is as such the eternal Mediator of the real atonement-religion (Germ. Versohnungs- 
kultus, the real worship of the religion of atonement—M.], and therefore the eternal and hea- 
venly Centre thereof, ch. i. 2, 3. 

I. As such He is superior to the mediators of the Old Testament economy; a, to angels, 
even as God-Man, ch. i. 4—ii. 18; 6, to Moses, the servant of the house, as the Son preparing 
the house, ch. iii. 1-19; ¢, to Joshua, the mediator of Sabbath-rest in Canaan, ch. iv. 1-13; “ἃ, to 
Aaron, the Highpriest, as a Priest forever, who has offered obedience, ch. iv. 14—v. 14; ὁ, to 
Mosaism in its entireness, to which the readers of the Epistle cannot return without falling away, 
ch. vi.; f, to Abraham even, as the real Priest of God, typified by Melchizedek, ch, vii. 1-11. 

II. As the priesthood of Christ is superior to the status of the Old Covenant, so is also the 
New Covenant with its services superior to the Old Covenant. a, The superiority of the new 
law and covenant, ch. vii. 12-22; δ, the superiority of the new priesthood, vv, 23-28; ὁ, the supe- 
riority of the new sanctuary and its services, ch. viii. 1—x. 39. (1, The new tabernacle, 2, the 
New Testament, 3, the new entrance of the new High-priest into the holiest of holies. The new 
covenant-blood and sacrifice. 4. Warning against the new or the New Testament apostasy). 

III. Hence the New Testament faith is also the sublime completion and fulfilment of the 
old faith, ch. xi. 1-40. Warning against apostasy from this faith, ch. xii. 1-17. 

IV. Hence also the new congregation on the spiritual Mount Zion, is superior to the old 
congregation at Mount Sinai, ch. xii, 18-24. Warning against disobedience. Exhortation to 
thank-offering; to the manifestation of this living service in brotherly love, ch. xii. 25—xiii. 7. 
Conclusion. The application, ch. xiii. 9. Caution against false teachers, Exhortation to bear- 
ing the reproach of Christ, to the life of prayer, to churchly disposition [¢. 6. with reference to ch. 
xiii, 17—M.]. Appropriate benediction and salutation, ch, xiii. 10-24. 


IJ. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 9 
----.ἔ «ὉΠ τττττΤτοέοῥυἝσἘΠ 4ὁἔλέἜἍιἍἔὁὃἝὮἘὁ ὁὃϑ ἙΈ {π{ἶ:ιοιἝὃΝοὀ88ὃς-. Φ ἕἮῃτῸ 


3. LITERATURE ON THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES, 


See the GENERAL CoMMENTARIES. Those on the New Testament Hnvsyenr, (Vol. IV., has 
since been published), HerpeacEr, ELnchiridion, p. 617. Dawnz, Universal Dictionary, p. 513; 
Supplement, p. 60. Winer, Manual of Theol. Literature, 1, p. 270; Supplement, p. 42. 
LinrenTHAL, Bibl. Archivarius, p. 734. Reuss, Introduction, p. 182. WIEsINGER, The Epis- 
we of James (Olshausen’s Commentary, Vol. VI., part 1., p. 45). 

On the Caruotic EpIsTLEs IN GENERAL OR IN PART: CLEMENT OF AuEx., Dipymus, Ven. 
Brepr, Grynavus, ARETIUS, JusTINIANUs, Hornesvs, Herper, Epistles of two brothers of Jesus 
im our Canon, Lemgo, 1775. 

ON SEPARATE EPISTLES: ScHRODER, SEEMILLER, SEMLER. Roos, Morus, Horrrnaer, 
ZacHariH, Paraphrase Exposition. Gottingen, 1776. Bunern, Explanatory Paraphrase of 
the Catholic Epistles and the Revelation of John, Tiabingen, 1781. Commentary by G. Scuin- 
GEL, 1783.—Carpzov, Epist. Cathol., Halle, 1790. J. L. W. Scuerer, the Catholic Epistles 
Vol. I., James, Marburg, 1799. Avausrti, the Catholic Epistles, Lemgo, 1801-1808. Port, 
Lpist. Cathol., 2 vols., 1786-1810. Goprert, the so-called Catholic Epistles, Lemgo, 1801-1808, 
Grasuor, the Epistles of the Holy Apostles James, Peter, John and Jude, translated and ex- 
plained, Essen, 1830. JacumMann, Commentary on James, Leipzig, 1838. Scuarurne, Jacobi 
et Jude Epistole, etc., Copenhagen, 1841. 

TREATISES ON THE CaTHoLic Episrues:—Sraupuin, Comment. de fontibus Epistol, Cathol. 
Gottingen, 1790. Srorr, de Cathol. Epist. occasione et consilo, Tubingen, 1789. J. D. Scuvuze, 
on the Sources of the Epistles of Peter, etc. The literary character and value of Peter, Jude 
and James, Weissenfels, 1802. F. LiickE ἐπιστολαὶ καθολικαΐ, and Epistolee Canonice in Theol, 
Studien und Kritiken, 1836, p. 643-650. Muyer’s Commentary (Parts XII. XIV., XV., Com- 
mentary by Hurner); De Werte, Eveget. Handbuch, I Vol. 3; III. Vol. 1. 

[Besides the General Commentaries of MattHEw Henry, Scort, Ginn, CLarKE, WuirTBy, 
ΟΥ̓ anp Mant, Barnegs and the Greek Testaments of BLooMFIELD, ALFORD and Worps- 
WortTH, there are also the following: AposronicaL EpIstiEs: CaJETANUS, Folio, Venet., 1531. 
TITELMAN, F., Elucidatio in omnes epistolas apostol., 8vo., Anto., 1532.—GuaLTHERts, R+ 
floruie in omnes epist. apostol., Folio., Tiguri, 1599.—Hremuinatius, WV. Comment in Omnes 
Epist. Apostol., Foiio, Lips., 1572—Esrrvus, Gurrenmus, Jn omnes Lpist., item in Cathol. Com- 
ment, Moguntie, 1841-45. Dickson, D., Expos. analyt. omnium Apostol. Epistol., Glasg., 
1645.—Pyux, Tuomas, A paraphrase, with notes upon the Acts, and all the Epistles, 2 vols. 
8vo., London, 1737.—Macxnteur, Jamzs, A new literal translation Jrom the orig. Greek of all 
the Apostolical Epistles, etc., London, 1816. 

On THE CATHOLIC EpisruEs: THEOPHYLACT, OrcuMENIvs, Aquinas, Hvs, Faser, CAL- 
vin, Coccerus, Crir. Sacr., CornELIUs A LAPIDE, Rictor, Dom Louris, Paraphrase des LEpitres 
Canoniques, 12vo0., Metz 1727. (Much commended by Catmer). Contet, Samvrn, Pract 
Paraphr. on the seven Catholic Epistles, etce., Lond., 1834. Brnson, G., Zhe seven Catholic 
Epistles. Sumner, App., Pract. Hupos. of the general Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude 
8vo., Lond. 1840,—M.]. 


1. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


1. THE AUTHOR. 


James, who describes himself as Author of this Epistle, must be either the Apostle James 
the Less (Mark xv. 40), or the son of Alpheus, Jacobus Alphezi (Matth. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; 
Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 18), or also “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. i. 19; ch. ii, 9), who is altogether 
identical with Jacobus Alphei (Acts i. 13; xii. 17; xv. 13: xxi 18). 

This definite hypothesis does not follow solely from the Introduction of this Epistle, in 
which he calls himself “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” But it does follow 
from it, that James claimed to possess a prominent position in the Church, and felt conscious of 
being known to the whole Jewish-Christian Church as J ames, the servant of God and of Jesus 
Christ in at exclusive sense, which rendered it impossible to confound him with any other James, 


10 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


But that the tradition of the Church ascribed to him (with a preponderance of testimony) Apos- 
tolical authority follows from the reception of his Epistle into the Canon, although it was 
enumerated among the Antilegomena; indeed it is matter of inquiry, whether during the third 
century it was not by confounding data and opinions first included for awhile among the Antile- 
gomena, 

It is settled, however, that James the Elder, the son of Zebedee, cannot have been the author 
of this Epistle, because he suffered martyrdom as early as A. D. 44 (Acts xii. 1, 2), while the 
internal allusions and statements of this Epistle belong to a much later period. The subscrip- 
tion in the Peschito and that in an old Latin translation ascribe without any reason the author- 
ship to him, and Luther took him for the pretended author. 

The question of the authorship of our Epistle would thus be settled, had not an old error 
diffused the opinion current in ancient tradition and modern theology, that it is necessary to dis- 
tinguish the Apostle Jacobus Alphei from the Lord’s brothers. Jt is the old Ebionite apocryphal 
legend of the Lord’s brothers. 

Adhering to the simple statements of the New Testament all doubt concerning the identity 
of James with “the Lord’s brother ” must vanish; although we do not at once see why James 
the son of Alphzus should be called the Lord’s brother. 

For James, the son of Alphzeus, passes at once from the lists of the Apostles, given in the 
Gospels (Matth. x. 2; Mark iii. 16; Luke vi. 14), into the list of the Apostles given in Acts 
(ch. i. 13). Here he appears as yet as James the son of Alphzus, by the side of his prominent 
name-sake, the son of Zebedee, who is therefore called simply James. But immediately after 
the death of this prominent James (Acts xii. 2) there is mentioned another James, who bears 
that name without all further qualification (Acts xii. 47); and the assumption is highly impro- 
bable that James, the son of Alpheus, should in so short a time, have vanished from the stage 
past all tracing, without being thought worthy of having even his death noticed by Luke, the 
historian, and that there should suddenly have sprung up some non-apostolical James, who 
actually occupied a prominent position among the Apostles. We are thus forced to maintain 
that if after the death of James the son of Zebedee, who was simply called James, there arose 
forthwith another James who went simply by that name, that James must have been the son 
of Alpheus. And thus he is mentioned all through Acts, ever the same and ever in the same 
position of a mediator of the new Christian faith and the historical national consciousness of his 
people (ch. xv. 13; xxi. 18). But while the last meeting of Paul the Apostle, and this James 
of the Acts, who is called James without any further addition to his name, occurred about 59- 
60, A. D., it is to be noticed, that Paul made mention of James, as the Lord’s brother (Gal. i. 19; 
ii. 9) several years before that time (about A. D, 56-57); so also the appellation “the Lord’s 
brother,” simply, or “James” simply (1 Cor. ix. 5; ch. xv. 7 about A. Ὁ. 58). Here, again we 
have to call attention to the circumstance that Paul, in the first chapter of Galatians, conjoins 
the same James, whom in the second chapter he describes as one of the pillars among the Apos- 
tles, with the rest of the Apostles, as the Lord’s brother, 

In the first place, then, we must hold fast the hypothesis that James the son of Alpheus, 
and the Lord’s brother, are identical. The question now comes up, what is the relation of this 
supposition to the most ancient tradition of the Church? The oldest tradition is represented by 
Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria. Hegesippus, according to Eusebius, iv. 23, reports as 
follows: “James, the brother of the Lord received the government of the Church conjointly with 
the Apostles, who from the time of the Lord until our own was surnamed the Just by all; for 
many were called James, but this one was consecrated from his mother’s womb.” Then follows 
an account of his holiness, the character of a pious Nazarite and a faithful Christian martyr. 
He undertook the government a the Church with the Apostles, that is, he was not the exclusive 
bishop, but the coéperation (in the office) was reserved to the Apostles as such. As bishop in 
the Apostolical sense, according to which every overseer of the Church was subject to the joint 
Apostolate of the Church, he was distinguished from the Apostles although he was at the same 
time an Apostle, just as Peter was distinguished as spokesman from the other Apostles, although 


a τ τ ιιπι΄΄ῇ΄ῇ΄’΄ῇ“ῇῇ“ῇῇ΄““ ῇ  ὍἝὍὅοῆΠόῸᾶῸΟΎΠΎῆ-ῖ05οιεῆἙΣξρ͵ξααίΥἯἁοα,..-"ἝἨἨ ἕμ,ἅῖ ..- 


1 Huther (p. 4, Note 3) thinks that the prominent position of James at Jerusalem could not haye been owing to his 


Il. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 11 
.- πω ΕΤΟΥΣ κτ τ΄  ς - --  -- ----. .ὅΞῸ.ὕ00ἐεἰ-- 
- he belonged to their number, Acts v. 29 (ὁ Πέτρος καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι). If we here press the letter in 
the sense of a distinction of the son of Alpheus from the brother of the Lord, Hegesippus in 
another passage (Kuseb, III., 22) on the descent of James declares himself in favour of the identity. 
He says that Simeon the son of Cleophas succeeded James the Just as bishop, this one again 
being a descendant of the same uncle of the Lord (ϑείου αὐτοῦ referred to the next following ὁ 
κύριος), and that all gave him this preferetce, as being the second relative of the Lord (aveydc)." 
Cleophas, or what amounts to the same thing, Alpheus (cf. Bretchneider’s Lexicon) was conse- 
quently our Lord’s uncle, James and Simeon (the same as Simon) his sons, James and Simon 
brothers, both the sons of Alphzeus, both cousins of the Lord, but the former, as appears from 
what has gone before, revered by the surname “the brother of the Lord.” Still more important 
is the testimony of Clement of Alexandria (Huseb. IL, 1): “The Lord imparted the gift of 
knowledge (the gnosis) to James the Just, to John and Peter after His resurrection. These 
delivered it to the rest of the Apostles.” He then adds expressly, “there were, however, two 
Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from a battlement of the temple and beaten to 
death with a fuller’s club, and another, who was beheaded.” To this must be added the testimony 
of Origen in his Commentary on Matthew, ch. xvil. But the testimony of the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews that Christ, after His resurrection, had appeared to James the Just, the brother 
of the Lord must be taken in conjunction with the testimony of Paul (1 Cor. xv. 7), that “Christ 
was seen of James, then of al/ the Apostles.” The same appearing therefore is called once an 
appearing to James the Apostle, and again an appearing to the brother of the Lord. 


The list of the brothers of Jesus, given in the Gospels, specifies James, Simon and Judas 
(Matth. xiii. 55). The list in Acts also specifies James, Simon and Judas, but it distinguishes 
the James there introduced as the son of Alphzus, from James the son of Zebedee, the Peter there 
introduced, as Zelotes or the Canaanite from Simon Peter, and the Jude there introduced, as Leb- 
beeus or Thaddeus from Judas Iscariot.? In the Apostolical Epistles we find after the death of 
the elder James, the name of a James who is an Apostle and also a brother of the Lord (Gal. 11.; 
Gal. 1)8, who is also a brother of Jude, and to whom we are indebted for an Apostolical Epistle. 


The most ancient tradition (that of Hegesippus) informs us therefore that James the brother 
of the Lord, was the brother of Simon, and that both were the sons of Cleophas=Alphzus. 
But from Clement we actually learn that there existed no other James of any importance than 
James the Elder and James the Just, who was one of the most distinguished Apostles (so distin- 
guished that Clement, indeed, erroneously confounds him with James the Elder). Lastly 
concerning Jude, Hegesippus reports likewise a Jude who was called the brother of our Lord, 
according to the flesh (Euseb. IIT., 19, 20). Eusebius after his uncritical manner, or as an 
erring exegete, turns the phrase “he was called a brother of the Lord” into, “he was a brother 
of the Lord.” For in like manner he makes Simeon the son of Cleophas,whose death is reported 
by Hegesippus (Euseb. III., 32), the grandson of Cleophas, because he understood the phrase 
“ Maria Cleophas” to denote “ Mary the daughter of Cleophas.” 

This identity, which is everywhere transparent, follows also from the most striking particular 
evidences. Mary, the mother of James the Less or of James the son of Alpheus, 15 also the 
mother of Joses (Matth. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; v.47, ch. xvi,1). This proves that four 
brothers of the Lord bore the same names as the four sons of Alphaus, viz.: James, Simon, Jude 


Apostleship “ which pointed rather to missionary activity than to the episcopal government of a congregation” But where 
was the Apostle of the Jews to reside, if not at Jerusalem? If Christ did charge the Apostles “ Go ye into all the world,” He 
surely did not mean to exclude the centre of Judaism. 

1 On the view of Neander, who makes Ἰάκωβον the subject of αὐτοῦ, cf. my article “Jacobus” in Herzog’s R. E. p. 407, 
and my Apostolicdl Age, I. p. 194. Nor does the note of Huther (p, 5) affect our explanation, especially as it proposes to leave 
undecided the account of Hegesippus, that Simeon the son of Clopas was ἀνεψιός: οὗ the Lord. 

2 Huther will not admit that this Jude is a son of Alpheus, but the son of a James, because he is called Ἰούδας ᾿Ιακώβου 
in Luke vi. 16 and Αοἰβ i.13. But Jude 1 proves that a Jude might be thus designated with reference to his honoured and 
universally known brother. Lebbzeus also is placed in juxtaposition with James in Matth. x. 3 and we must not press the 
circumstance that he is not expressly called his brother. In the case of this Jude it was contemplated to distinguish him 
as much as possible from Judas Iscariot (see Jno. xiv. 22), and this was accomplished by designating him as the brother of 
the well-known James. 

3 Stier’s and Wieseler’s proposed distinction between the James of Gal. 1 and Gal. 2 is so forced as to render all refu- 
tation unnecessary. 


12 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


and Joses. On the numerous complications of both lines, see this commentary on Matth. xiii. 
53-58,1 . 

The opposite view, that the brothers of the Lord constitute a line of the same name to be 
distinguished from said Apostles is a development which through different stages must be traced 
back to the Jewish-Christian consciousness; treated with respect to the real point of observation, 
we may designate it as a view of Ebionite-apocryphal origin. Its first stage is the New Testa- 
ment emphasis on the sons of Alphzus as being the brothers of the Lord. The Jewish-Chris- 
tians gave peculiar prorminence to the respective Apostles of the Jews, especially to James, par- 
ticularly as contrasted with the authority of Paul. Paul admits this emphasis as to its historic 
value and recognizes as a climax of authority in which we have first the Apostles in general, 
then the Apostolical brothers of the Lord and then Peter, the Apostle (1 Cor. ix. 5). But 
his language in Gal. 2 shows how far he is from according to this historical authority any 
thing like Apostolical priority. The continuance and growth of this Jewish-Christian em- 
phasizing follows especially from the report of Hegesippus. But he still insists upon the 
identity of the brothers of the Lord with the sons of Alphzus, he still designates their brother- 
hood as an original cousinship, he still holds fast to the coérdination of the Apostles.—All 
this was changed with the full development of Ebionitism. The first Ebionite fanatics, who 
brought about a decided schism, denounced the aged bishop Symon, doubtless because he 
opposed their heresy, as a descendant of David, consequently as a relative of Jesus, doubtless 
after immoderate veneration had changed into immoderate hatred (Euseb. III. 32). But the 
later Ebionites (according to the Clementines) highly exalted James as the Lord’s brother even 
above Peter. Now since Peter was unmistakably the most distinguished member of the whole 
Apostolical College, the distinction of the brothers of the Lord from the like-named Apostles 
became inevitable. In the case of the common Ebionites was superadded the natural interest 
that this facilitated the view which made Jesus the actual son of Joseph, and Mary the mother 
of a number of children —This spurious, apocryphal tradition imposed upon and misled the un- 
critical Eusebius, who was wont to huddle every thing together, who was consequently either 
greatly at variance with himself or uncertain in himself. As by misunderstanding Papias, in the 
interest of Theology against the Apocalypse (see Apostol. Age I., p. 215) he conjured up the 
phantom of a presbyter John, and made Judas Lebbzeus Thadzeus one of the seventy disciples 
(i. 12, 13), so he made also James, the brother of the Lord one of the seventy, that is: distin- 
guished from James the Apostle (i. 12), although in every instance he takes refuge behind tradition. 

This laid the foundation of the vacillations of the later fathers concerning the brother of 
the Lord, among whom Gregory of Nyssa and Chrysostom favoured the distinction, Epiphanius 
and Augustine the identity, while Jerome is undecided (see Article Jacobus in Herzog, p. 408). 
Since all these fathers depend on Eusebius, their opinion, as opposed to the original tradition in this 
matter, is devoid of all independent weight. In modern and most modern times the majority of 
theologians beginning with Luther (that the author of the Epistle “was some good, pious man”) 
have decided for the distinction; but they are opposed by a great number of eminent theologians 
(see Winer, Art. Jacobus; Wiesinger, The Epistle of James, Introd. p. 4 and others). 

The only question, however, relates to the merit of the arguments advanced in support of 
the two opposing views. But first of all must be settled the question how it was possible that 
the sons of Alpheus and of a Mary different from the mother of Jesus, could be or become the 
brothers of the Lord. According to Hegesippus (Euseb. III., 11) Alpheus or Clopas the father 
of Symeon the second bishop of Jerusalem, was the brother of Joseph and consequently Symecn 
the cousin of Jesus, by origin. But Mary the wife of this Alpheus is commonly and erroneously 
considered to have been the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. For Wieseler (in Studien und 
Kritiken 1840, Vol. IIL, p. 648) has shown that Jno, xix. 25 ought to be rendered: “ But there 
stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and the sister of His mother (Salome; after the manner 


1 Huther who characterized this presentation of the remarkable complications of said names as exaggerated (p. 4) sup- 
ports his statement mainly by the assertion that it is erroneous to maintain the identity of James the Just and James the 
son of Alphwus. But this is just what follows from the report of Hegesippus (Euseb. IV‘, 22). δεύτερον evidently belongs 
to the immediately preceding ἀνεψιόν and sustains the exposition that “Simeon the son of Cleophas our Lord’s uncle, next 
was appointed bishop.” 


II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 13 


of John only to indicate personal relations without specifying names), Mary the wife of Clopas 
and Mary Magdalene.’’ Hence the sons of Alphzeus were at the most cousins of the Lord in the 
legal sense through their father Alpheus and Joseph the foster-father of Jesus, while the sons of 
Zebedee were at all events His cousins in a stricter sense, as the sons of Salome, the sister of 
Mary the mother of Jesus. Hence the reference to a wider sense of the term brother as de- 
noting a relative or cousin (ἀνεψιός) is altogether insufficient to account for the constant appel- 
lation of James as the brother of the Lord. “But in this place arises the most simple hythosesis, 
supported by the custom of the Jews everywhere (see John xix. 26, 27). Cleophas was dead, 
Joseph the foster-father of Jesus was his brother, (Hegesippus in Huseb. xi. 3); he now became 
also the foster-father of the sons of his brother Cleophas and thenceforth the family of Joseph and 
the family of Alphzus-Cleophas, the other Mary, therefore, and her sons James and Joses, Simon 
and Jude, with several daughters formed one household (Matth. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3). Now 
after the decease of Joseph also, the oldest brothers of Jesus, who most probably were older than 
Jesus, especially James, gradually became the heads of this household and this circumstance 
would account for the disposition of these brothers even at a later period, to assume some kind of 
guardianship over Jesus (Mark ΠΙ. 31; Jno. viz. 3—See my article Jacobus in Herzog’s Lexicon),”— 
The sons of Alpheus were then according to Jewish law the brothers of 6585. Schneckenburger 
on the false hypothesis of Mary Cleophas having been the sister of the mother of Jesus conceived 
that upon the early decease of Joseph, Mary the mother of Jesus went to live with her sister 
the wife of Alpheus.— 

We now purpose giving (with reference to the Article Jacobus in Herzog’s Real-Encyclo- 
pedia already quoted repeatedly) a brief account of the reasons and counter-reasons of the dis- 
tinction between James the son of Alpheus and James the brother of the Lord. 

Reasons: 1. James the son of Alpheus, being only the cousin of Jesus, could not be called 
the brother of the Lord. This difficulty is set aside by the above discussion of the subject. 

2. The most ancient tradition of the Church does not make mention of James, the brother of 
the Lord, as of an Apostle. We have seen that the most ancient tradition affirms the opposite. 

3. In the title of the Epistle of James the author simply calls himself the servant of Christ. 
But Paul also describes himself by the same title in the Epistle to the Philippians, John in the 
two lesser Epistles calls himself presbyter, and James had reasons of humility, wisdom and 
faith for calling himself the servant of Christ especially as he might well notice the abuse to 
which the appellation “brother of the Lord” had given rise. 

4, Jno, vii. 5, we read that “the brethren of Jesus did not believe in Him,” at a time when 
James the son of Alpheus had been received already among the Apostles. But John doubtless 
refers to the same unbelief or want of resigned obedience of faith? according to which his mother 
also did not believe in him, Mark ui. 31, or Peter, Matth. xvi. 23 and Thomas, Jno. xx. 25. 

5. The passage Acts i. 19, 14, besides enumerating the Apostles, mentions the brothers of 
Jesus. The primary reference may be to Joses and his sisters; but just as Mary, who certainly 
belonged to the women, is introduced besides the women by the special designation of Mary the 
mother of Jesus, so also the Apostolical brothers of Jesus, besides having been included in the list 
of the Apostles, may be introduced by the special designation of the brothers of Jesus. 

6. 1 Cor. ix. 5, introduces the brothers of the Lord alongside of the Apostles. To be sure; 
but Peter also is mentioned in particular according to the climax: a, Apostles in general, b, the 
brothers of the Lord as distinguished Apostles in the estimate of the Jewish-Christian opponents 
of Paul, c, Peter as the most distinguished Apostle. 
se rE ee a0 ὕῤ  ΞὀΞι Θ ΤΡ τ 

1 Huther says p. 7 that this hypothesis is devoid of all solid reason but he substantiates his assertion only by the 
statement that tradition is ignorant of the early death of .Clopas and the adoption of his children by Joseph. History 
knows that the sons of Alphzus and Mary the mother of Jesus formed one household in which the former wielded some 
authority. Huther (p. 8) thinks it more probable that Mary and the brothers of Jesus believed (according to Mark iii. 21, 
31), Jesus to be beside Himself, than to have had recourse to a pretext in order to extricate Him from supposed imminent 
danger. Mary is to have believed the report that Jesus was out of His mind!! We use here fcr once two marks of atten- 


tion against the one of Huther, who, after the manner of Meyer expects it to produce a sensation and for the rest remind 
our readers of Luther’s well-known flight to the Wartburg. 


2 “Altogether arbitrary,” says Huther, although thé matter may be elucidated by the analogous cases in the conduct 
of Mary, of Peter, of the sons of Zebedee and of Thomas. 


14 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 

Cbunter-reasons. 1. It is hardly conceivable that Luke (Acts xii. 2) should suffer James 
the son of Alphseus to vanish from the stage without all further mention and to let some other 
James, until then not an Apostle, forthwith (Acts xii. 17) enter the circle of the Apostles and. 
enjoy peculiar distinction, without offering any explanation of the fact. 

2. It is purely inconceivable, considering the importance attached by the Apostles to a duly 
authenticated call to the Apostleship (Acts i. 21, etc.), that they should have agreed to acknowl- 
edge as a man of Apostolical vocation, James a recently converted non-apostle, although he was 
a brother of the Lord; and especially that Paul, who was obliged so emphatically to defend his 
apostolicity against Judaizing Christians, should have accorded so prominent a position among 
the Apostles (Gal. ii.) to a non-apostle. 

3. If any thing, it is still more inconceivable that the names of three real Apostles should 
have been extinguished without all trace by the names of three non-apostles who had acquired 
Apostolical authority, viz.: James, Simon, Jude. 

4, Equally inconceivable is this threefold dualism of three names of equal dignity, equal de- 
scent and relationship, and of equal fraternity, that is, 

a. James, Simon and Jude were Apostles. Another James, another Simon and another Jude 
acquired Apostolical distinction in their stead. 

b. James the Apostle was the son of an Alpheus, the non-apostle James and his brothers 
were also the sons of an Alphzeus. 

c. In like manner James the Apostle and Joses were brothers, being the sons of Maria 
Alphei. The non-apostles James, Simon, Jude and Joses being the sons of Alphzeus probably 
would be also the sons of the same Mary. 

5. In the passage 1 Cor. xv. 7, a distinction is drawn between the appearing of Christ, to 
James and His appearing to all the apostles indicating that he had been mentioned before as a 
single Apostle. 

6. The passage Gal. i. 19: “But another of the Apostles saw I not save James the Lord’s 
brother,” can only by finesse be construed to mean that James was not counted among the 
Apostles, as has been done by Hess and Neander, but each in a way of his own. To this must 
be added: 

7. Moreover the codrdinate authority of the same James with Peter and John Gal. ii. to 
which Paul offers not the least objection although he had taken the watchword “to know no- 
body after the flesh.” We have still to superadd: 

8. The above-mentioned most ancient church-tradition with its decisive testimony. 

9. The demonstrability of the obscure Ebionite-apocryphal origin of the legend of the Lord’s 
brothers taken in conjunction with the insecurity of Eusebius and the false security of the 
fathers who sustain their opinion by his. 

10. The agreement of the characteristic traits of the brothers of the Lord according to 
the Gospels with the characteristic traits of the like-named Apostles with reference to the cau- 
tion of James (Mark iii; Acts xv. xxi. 18; the Epistle of James), to the fiery vivacity of Judas 
Lebbmwus Thaddeus (Jno. vii. 3; Jno. xiv. 22; the Epistle of Jude), which may also have been 
the charactenstic trait of Simon Zelotes at an earlier period of his life; οὗ my Life of Jesus, p. 148; 
Apost. Age 1, p. 364. We have elsewhere repeatedly affirmed the identity of James and the 
brothers of the Lord with great decisiveness (Life of Jesus; Apost. Age, Article Jacobus in 
Herzog’s Encyclopedia, in this Commentary on Matthew); but here it was impossible to avoid 
repeating ἃ short resumé of the process and it is necessary to use every effort towards the re- 
moval of the groundless and unreasonable Apoeryphon of false learning from the field of 
theology. 

After what has been said we may briefly sketch the life-portrait of James. 1¢ follows from 
the foregoing statement that James also must have been among the brothers of Jesus, who after 
His first appearance at Cana in Galilee accompanied Him to Capernaum. The Evangelist desig- 
nates these companions of Jesus to have consisted of His mother, His brothers and His disciples, 
We have seen that there was good reason for the continuance of the two categories, His brothers 
and His disciples, at a later period, because the two lines did not fully cover each other, that is, 
because Joses and the sisters never belonged to the circle of the Apostles. But while we assume 


II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 15 


that the sons of Alpheus at that time were not yet disciples, their inclination to believe seems 
to follow from their having joined the company of Jesus.! Soon after, after the first festive 
journey, Jesus appeared at Nazareth (Luke iv. 22; Matth. xii. 55), and on that occasion His 
brothers are mentioned as follows, James, Joses, Simon, Judas. Matthew according to his ar- 
rangement has assigned the respective event to a later period, probably because he connects it 
with a subsequent appearance of Jesus at Nazareth. Even then only the sisters, probably mar- 
ried, appear to reside at Nazareth (Math. xii. 56; Mark vi. 3). Again at a somewhat later 
period took place the first sending of the twelve disciple-Apostles and among them we find 
the name of James the son of Alphzus and the names of his brothers Lebbeus Thaddeus 
or Judas and Simon Zelotes or the Cananite. But the surname the son of Alpheus distin- 
guishes our James from James the son of Zebedee. The separation of the Apostles had oc- 
curred some time before the visit of Jesus to the feast of Purim in the second year of His 
official life. At that feast Jesus had incurred the hatred and persecution of the Jewish hierarchy 
by the performance of a cure on the Sabbath day; hence He soon after was put to great straits 
in Galilee and His mother and brothers (Mark i. 21-35), conceived it their duty to restrain 
Him from His bold attitude towards His enemies and to save Him from their hand by stratagem. 
There is as little difficulty in supposing James the son of Alpheus to have participated in 
this rashness as there is difficulty in admitting the rashness of the sons of Zebedee (Luke ix. 54), 
of Peter (Matth. xvi. 22), and in the unbelief of Thomas. Indeed we may go even so far as to 
suppose that James was the chief prompter in this matter, which exhibits a sinful caution, 
whose purified and spiritualized counterpart we meet again in his later conduct (cf. Acts 15, 
and ch. xxi.). For the same reason we may suppose that in the second exhibition of rashness in 
the opposite direction, on the part of the brothers of Jesus, which took place in the autumn of the 
same year before the feast of Tabernacles (Jno. vu. 3, 4), it was not James who was prominent 
. but his brothers, especially Judas, who although silenced did at a later period revert once more 
to the idea of inciting Jesus to manifest Himself to the world (ch. xiv. 22), although it is to 
be noticed that Jesus had again greatly raised the.courage of the disciples on the mountain of 
transfiguration and at the foot of the same. -The degree to which the family of Alpheus emu- 
lated the sons of Zebedee (Matth. xx. 20), in their sympathy with our Lord m His end at 
Jerusalem, is apparent from the fact that Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses was 
among the women that were spectators of the crucifixion. Yes, it was she only, who on the 
evening of the burial of Jesus in company with Mary Magdalene, sat over against His tomb 
(Matth. xxvii. 61); in the same manner, she and Mary Magdalene were among the first of those 
women who on Easter-morning hastened forth to the tomb of Jesus (Matth. xxviii. 1). Mean- 
while James quietly matured into one of the much distinguished Apostles. After the martyr- 
dom of the elder James, who seems already to have stood in a nearer relation to the government 
of the Church at Jerusalem, because Herod Agrippa laid hands on him first, James the Less, ac- 
cording to a tacit presupposition, seems to step into his place; for Peter charges those, to whom 
he showed himself after his deliverance from prison, to tell James and the brethren. At the 
Apostolic Convention at Jerusalem (Acts xy.) James is one of the most distinguished speakers; 
and here we perceive clearly that he deemed it his task to be the mediator of the religious 
liberty of the Gentile Christians and the national customs of the Jewish Christians. He stands 
on precisely the same platform of faith as that of Peter and Paul; what he proposes in order to 
pacify the Jewish Christians is not a religious but an ethical dogma; a measure of missionary 
wisdom, which accordingly meets the approbation of all the Apostles. That he did not Judaize, 
and indeed as an Apostle he could not judaize, is evident from the decided ground he took against 
judaizing demands, which was also fully accorded to him by Paul (Gal. ii.). On the other hand, 
in his cautious consideration for the Jews, whom in their national totatility he would gladly 
have saved for the Christian faith, he went to the utmost limit, as is evident from the counsel 
which he and his immediate associates gave to Paul on his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts xxi.). 
Paul was to give proof to the Jews that he did not despise the customs of the fathers by accom- 

1 According to Huther they went with Him from Cana to Capernaum, not because they were inclined to believe, but 


because they belonged to their mother. He seems to conceive them to have been young children, but Mark iii. clearly 
shows that such was surely not the case. 


16 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


plishing the vow of a Nazarite in the temple at Jerusalem. We cannot consider this counsel in 
the light of an inspiration; it miscarried and actually produced the very opposite effect that had 
been contemplated. But Paul, who also before this entertained a high esteem for James (Gal. 1, 
ii.), saw nothing to object to it, although he could offer the most decided resistance to every ἡ 
yudaizing tendency, even when Peter was guilty of it. But this cautious position of James, 
this keeping sacred the nationa: custom of his people enables us to understand how the judaizers 
might make such manifold abuse of his name (as is apparent from Gal. 11, 4, 12, and similar indi- 
cations). James, then, is above all things an Apostle, a witness of Christ, everyways the equal 
of the other Apostles; Christianity is to him the fulfilment of the Old Testament, a new, abso- 
lute, eternal principle of religion and in this respect he, Paul and John occupy the same plat- 
form. But,in the next place, he is also the Apostle of the Jews ‘par excellence;’ that is, he 
conceives of Christianity in its close connection with the Old Testament, as the new perfect law 
of spiritual life and of liberty, because on the other hand he apprehends Judaism as passing into 
Christianity [Germ. werdendes Christenthum] and feels conscious of a special call for his peo- 
ple. As to the form of James’s ideas, it is to be noticed that he addresses Jewish Christians (for 
it is settled already that our Epistle can belong to only one James) to whom the mediating 
dialectical form would be a heterogeneous element. The purity of his Greek style indeed has 
been to some an enigmatical phenomenon, But it characterizes also the Apostle of holy care- 
fulness. 

Baumgarten (Acts iy. 127) has treated at large of the grandness of the ecclesiastical position 
of James. The following sentence however requires to be examined. “James refuses to acknow- 
ledge any other liberty than that formed within the measure of the law and in this sense he calls 
the law, the law of liberty.”—In that sense the law has always been a law of liberty; but here 
the reference is rather to a liberty, developing and manifesting itself as a new law of life, and 
which preserves holy Jewish custom in Jewish-Christianity but patriarchal custom with (along- 
side of) Jewish-Christianity. ‘James represents the Christian dogma in the form of the Jewish 
Ethos [#@oc—custom—M.]. He has removed the Old Testament law, as such, from the sphere 
of religion into the sphere of national custom. And this was the very task assigned to him, be- 
cause he had to put forth the best effort of love with a view to gain the Jewish nation to Chris- 
tianity. This effort is recorded by historical tradition.” (See Herzog’s Real-Lewicon, Art. Ja- 
cobus). Three reports are in perfect agreement on the characteristics of James and also with the 
sketch of his character found in Holy Writ. The Gospel according to the Hebrews narrates of 
him, that James after the death of Jesus took the vow, that from the time he had shared the last 
meal with Jesus he would not eat any thing until he saw Him risen from the dead; that the 
risen Saviour soon afterwards appeared to him and told him, “Go eat thy bread, for the Son of 
Man is risen from the dead.” This report sounds rather apocryphal; but its subject-matter, 
although not its very words, are confirmed by the statements of Hegesippus, that James was a 
Nazarite, and by the fact that he also recommended Paul to fulfil the vow of a Nazarite (Acts 
xxi). This Nazarite vow on the part of James surely does not denote a wavering faith, as Neander 
thinks, but rather an over-bold form of his assurance of faith. In a general way, however, the 
account in the Gospel of the Hebrews concerning a special appearing of Christ to James agrees 
with the statement of Paul 1 Cor. xv. 7. Thesecond particular, for which we are indebted to 
Josephus (Antig. XX. 9, 1) consists of a general notice of the martyrdom of James. He reports 
“that the high-priest Ananus, a Sadducee, in the interval between the departure of Festus from 
Palestine, A. D. 62 [Josephus speaks of his death—M.], and the arrival of Albinus, the new Pro- 
curator, caused the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James and some 
others,’ whom he had accused as breakers of the law, to be stoned to the great dislike of the more 
moderate citizens, who therefore informed against him before Albinus.” Eusebius (II. 23), super- 
adds the words of Josephus that all the calamities of the destruction of Jerusalem did happen to 
the Jews to avenge James the Just who was brother of Him that is called Christ and whom the 
Jews had slain, notwithstanding his preéminent justice. To this we must add in the third place 
the detailed account of Hegesippus in Eusebius (II. 23). “With the Apostles James, the brother 


1 On the doubt concerning the genuineness of the words in Italics expressed by Cloricus and others, see Huther Ρ. 2. 
Note. But the several notices of Eusebius seem to sustain Josephus. 


II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 17 


of the Lord, succeeds to the charge of the Church—that James who has been called the Just and 
from the time of our Lord to our own day, for there were many of the name of James. He was 
holy from his mother’s womb (a Nazarite, one consecrated), he drank not wine or strong drink, 
nor did he eat animal food; a razor came not upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil; 
he did not use the bath. He alone might go into the holy place (εἰς τὰ ayca).”—This expression 
is falsely interpreted as designating the holiest of holies. The expression may admit of such an 
interpretation, but the Jewish law forbids it, The acknowledged Nazarite might probably go 
with the priests into the temple proper (Acts xxi. 26).—‘‘ For he wore no woollen clothes but 
linen. And alone he used to go into the temple and there he was commonly found upon his 
knees, praying for forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard-skinned like a camel’s, 
from his constantly bending them in prayer and entreating forgiveness for the people.” On ac- 
count therefore of his exceeding righteousness he was called “Just” and ‘‘Oblias” (according to 


Stroth OY boi), which means in Greek “the bulwark (pillar) of the people” and “righteous- 


ness,” as the prophets declare of him (in the opinion of the Jewish people). Some of the seven 
sects of the Hebrews inquired of him, ‘‘ What is the door (doctrine) of Jesus?” And he said 
that this man was the Saviour, wherefore some believed that Jesus is the Christ. Now the fore- 
mentioned sects did not believe in the Resurrection, nor in the coming of one (Christ, Mes- 
siah) who shall recompense every man according to his works; but all who became believers 
believed through James. When many therefore of the rulers believed etc. At last, reports 
Hegesippus, there arose a general conflict of opinions among the people and at the Passover 
they placed him on the gable of the Temple and bade him solemnly declare in the audience of all 
the people what he believed concerning Jesus, because he was the Just and would speak in con- 
formity with his convictions. From that lofty place he then cried with a loud voice: “Why ask 
ye me about Jesus, the Son of Man? He sits in heaven on the right. hand of great power and 
will come in the clouds of heaven.” And many were convinced and gave glory on the testimony 
of James, crying, Hosannah to the Son of David. But the Scribes and Pharisees cried “Oh! oh! 
even the Just is gone astray,” rushed up and threw him down. Below they then stoned him 
(symbolically, therefore, the whole act was of course a zealotical stoning and so Josephus, from 
his centre of observation, correctly reports the event) and slew him with a fuller’s club.”—This 
narrative affords also a full illustration of the forementioned statement of Josephus superadded 
by Eusebius that the wisest among the Jews agree with him in regarding the destruction of 
Jerusalem as the punishment of this crime. Josephus and the Jews who were of his mind seem 
to have had an obscure foreboding that James was the last preacher of repentance sent to the 
Jewish people as a nation, and that the murder of this witness of the truth was the decisive 
stubbornness of the people as a people, upon which the judgment had inevitably to follow. 
Neander and Schaff have discovered without reason much legendary matter and an Ebionite 
mode of thinking in the report of Hegesippus. Hegesippus was certainly a Jewish Christian but 
not an Ebionite. It must not be overlooked that his opinion of James momentarily commingles 
in his report with his opinion of the Jewish people. But this narrative is strongly authenticated 
in all its main features. That James was a Nazarite is supported by Acts xxi. 23 etc., and by 
the citation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The zeal of James in interceding for the 
Jewish people is reflected in every thing we know of him. Josephus also testifies to the vene- 
ration James enjoyed among the Jewish people. But most important, in the last place, is 
the account of that public crisis which was to determine the decision of the Jewish nation 
for or against faith in Christ; and the antecedents of similar analogous crises, particularly in 
Acts v. 13; vi. 7; xxi. 22, as well as its internal truthfulness, give decided support to this the 
main feature of the account of Hegesippus. The Nazarite character of James would also ex- 
plain the reason why, to judge from later indications, the Essenes in particular became con- 
verts to Christianity and were more especially attached to the person of James not only as 
Jewish Christians but also in the direction of the Gnostic Ebionitism. The veneration with 
which Jewish Christians were wont to regard “the brother of the Lord,” which had already 
before that period become extremely one-sided, would be heightened in their case and the Cle- 
mentines in particular supply evidence that this veneration had actually been thus heightened, 


18 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


for they exalt James above Peter and all the Apostles and make him the supreme Bishop of 
all Christendom. James has here been made the symbol of judaistico-chiliastic claims to the 
government of Church and the world. According to Epiphan heres. XXX. δ 16 there were 
among the glorifications of James actually ἀναβαθμοὶ ᾿Ιακώβου, descriptions of his pretended as- 
cension. Epiphanius also notwithstanding his antagonism to the Ebionites, holds similar exag- 
τ gerations (Heres. XXIX. 4 and LXXVIII. 13). Probably it is only owing to Epiphanius mis- 
understanding Hegesippus that he states, “that James was like the highpriest permitted to 
enter once a year the holiest of holies because he was a Nazarite and wore the highpriest’s 
mitre (τὸ πέταλον). This myth is not on a level with the account of Polycrates respecting 
John (Euseb. V. 24). Polycrates doubtless accorded the highpriest’s mitre to John in a symbo- 
lico-ideal sense; which is hardly so in the case of Epiphanius. (See Herzog, Art. Jacobus). 
An ambiguous notice in Eusebius (VII. 19) states that the Church at Jerusalem in token of their 
veneration of James had preserved as a holy relic, his official seat. 

Owing to the mythical difference between James the Just and James the Apostle the myth 
took further occasion to decorate particularly the end of the latter, considered separately. Nice- 
phorus, IT. 40, reports him to have first appeared as a messenger of faith in South-Western Pales- 
tine, then in Egypt; and that he was crucified at Ostracina in Lower Egypt. (For particulars see 
Natalis Alex. Sec. I. p.59.) On the Church legends of the supposed two Jameses cf. Stichart, 
Ecclesiastical legend of the holy Apostles, Leipzig, 1861, p. 79 etc. The chronology of Eusebius 
fixes the death of the real and one James in the year A. 1). 63. Eusebius judiciously connects his 
death with Paul’s appeal to Rome (II. 23). Until then the hatred of the Jews had been directed 
mainly against Paul whom they tried to kill by all means. But by his appeal to Rome he escaped 
further persecution on their part. But since James had consorted with him at Jerusalem, it was 
natural that the hatred of many Jews should now be turned against: him, the most distinguished 
representative of Christianity among them. But from this it does not follow that Eusebius in- 
tended to say that James was killed as early as the time when the appeal took place; nor does 
it follow from Eusebius III. 11 that the death of James took place immediately before the 
destruction of Jerusalem. The notice of Josephus that James was killed after the departure of 
Festus and before the arrival of Albinus leads to about the time given in the chronology of Euse- 
bius, for Festus was called away in A. D. 62. 

“Among the Apostles James is, par excellence, the representative of Christian wisdom, gen- 
tleness, mediation and union; as apostolical presbyter-bishop of Jerusalem he is the representa- 
tive of Jewish nationality and custom in its Christian transformation and transfiguration. As 
the son of Alpheus he presents a contrast to the fiery, impetuous Judas Lebbeus Thaddeus, 
and exhibits the character of a sage and a sufferer matured, according to his charisma, in cau- 
tion by constant spiritual discipline. Thus he was the last and most engaging expression of the 
Gospel to the Jewish people; and after the stoning of this messenger of faith, the city and people 
were sealed unto judgment, which was acknowledged not only by Eusebius, but even resented 
by Josephus. Jerusalem rejected Christianity especially because it hated in it the union with 
Gentile Christians.” (From the article “Jacobus’’). On the literature of treatises on the 
supposed two Jameses see Winer’s Leal Worterbuch, Art. Jacobus, p. 525. Also Wiesinger’s 
Commentary p. 21 and the Jntroduction of Theile. 

[ExcursEs ON THE BrorHERs OF THE Lorp. 

[The family relations of Joseph and Mary demand more than a passing or one-sided notice. 
This interesting, but very difficult and complicated subject involves the question: Was Jesus 
the only child in the Holy Family, or were there other children, and ἐγ so, who were they ? 

The New Testament answers the first part of the question in the negative, and says con- 
cerning the second that Jesus had brothers and sisters. They are mentioned with or without 
their names twelve times in the Gospels (Matth. xii. 46,47; ΧΗ]. δ, 60 (adeAgotand adeAgai); 
Mark 111. 31, 32; vi. 3 (sisters also); Luke vii. 19, 20; Jno. vii. 3, 5, 10, once in Acts (i. 14), 
once in 1 Cor, (ix. 5) and once in Gal. (1. 19), where James of Jerusalem is called the Lord’s 


brother. 
St. Matthew (xii. 55) gives the names of the four brothers, viz. James, Joses or Joseph, 


Simon and Judas.—St. Mark (vi. 3) calls them James, Joses or Josetws, Simon and Juda. 


Il. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 19 
τ ee ee ee 
Neither the names nor the number of sisters are mentioned, but they cannot have been less 
than two. 
It is to be noticed that in all the passages referred to they are also called Hits brothers and 
sisters, i. e. the brothers and sisters of Jesus, never His cousins (ἀ νὲ pcoé) or kinsmen (avy yev- 
εἴς), and that these brothers and sisters are always mentioned in connection with Mary. 


These are the simple facts of the case, and in any other case, the terms used would have 
been received in their natural sense, the brothers and sisters would have been regarded as 
brothers and sisters, nothing more or less. But dogmatical prejudices and ascetic extravagances 
concerning the sanctity of celibacy began at a very early period to apply a non-natural interpre- 
tation to the terms brothers and sisters with reference to our Lord. At least three leading 
theories have been advanced towards the solution of this question. 


I. The theory which makes the brothers and sisters of Jesus the children of Joseph by a 
former marriage, or the adopted children of Joseph. 

Il. The theory which makes them the children of Mary, the sister of Mary the mother of 
Jesus, or the cousins-german of Jesus. As a variation of this theory, there is another which 
makes them His cousins both on the side of Joseph and Mary. 

III. The theory according to which they were the children of Joseph and Mary, or the ac- 
tual brothers and sisters of Jesus. : 

A condensed survey of these theories will enable us to form an idea of the difficulties con- 
nected with our subject.— 

I. The hypothesis that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a 
former marriage or his adopted children is founded on traditional notices drawn from the apo- 
cryphal gospels, which represent Joseph as a man of 80 years when he married Mary, the father 
of four sons and two daughters by his former wife Escha. The names of the children are variously 
given, This is the earliest tradition concerning the parentage of the brothers and sisters of the 
Lord, but need not detain us long, because even Jerome, the strenuous advocate of the cousin- 
theory, denounced it as “ deliramenta apocryphorum,” as “apocryphal nonsense.” But notwith- 
standing this strong censure of Jerome, and ample margin being left to the reputed age of Joseph 
at the time of his marriage, it contains nothing intrinsically improbable. It is indeed, and we 
think justly, pronounced by Stier and Greswell a mere fiction devised to save the ἀεειπαρθενία 
of Mary, and advocated on grounds of expediency by modern authors, but although the children 
of Joseph might and would be called the brothers and sisters of Jesus, the hypothesis is open to 
very grave objections, because it makes them the seniors of our Lord, which conflicts with their 
constant attendance on Mary and our Lord’s being the legal heir to the throne of David, a pre- 
rogative that could only have been enjoyed by the first-born, not by the last-born; for the people 
clearly knew nothing of His supernatural origin and here we have to deal altogether with popular 
impressions. 

A modification of this hypothesis is Lange’s adoption-theory. He supposes Joseph to have 
had a brother Clopas or Alpheus, who married a certain Mary, not the sister of Mary the mother 
of Jesus. He died early and Joseph adopted his children who thus became the legal brothers 
and sisters of our Lord. Their mother also became an inmate of Joseph’s family. It is hard to 
realize such a state of things, if we consider that Joseph was a poor carpenter, and that Mary 
the supposed mother of those children should have relinquished her maternal rights over them. 
The hypothesis, although very ingenious, is purely speculative, countenanced neither by exegesis . 
nor tradition, and evidently the result of dogmatic and critical perplexity. 


Lichtenstein makes Joseph and Clopas, two brothers, marry two sisters both named Mary. 
At the death. of Clopas, Joseph took Mary, the widow of Clopas, into his family, and thus the 
children were doubly related to our Lord, legally on their father’s side and naturally on their 
mother’s side—and might therefore after their adoption be styled the brothers and sisters of the 
Lord. 

The Levirate hypothesis, according to which Joseph on the death of his brother Clopas, mar- 
ried his widow, and that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the fruit of this marriage, belongs 
under this head, but needs neither discussion nor refutation. 


20 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


II. We come now to the cowsin-theory, which makes the brothers and sisters of our Lord 
the children of Clopas and Mary, the sister of Mary the mother of our Lord, and alleges that 
these children by a lax use of the words brother and sister were regarded to sustain the fraternal 
relation to our Lord. 

This theory rests upon the following assumptions, 1. That Alphzeus and Clopas are identical; 
2. that Mary the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Jude was his wife and the sister of Mary 
the mother of Jesus; 8. that the lax use of the term “brother” is a fact. These assumptions are 
open to weighty objections. 

a. The identity of Alphzus and Clopas rests on the slender foundation that James the 
Less, one of the twelve is called the son of Alpheus (Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ ’AAgaiov 
Matth. x. 3; Mark ii. 14; iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13) and that one of the specta- 
tors of the crucifixion, called Mary (Clopa=Mapia ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ) was the mother 
of James the Less, because a Mary, the mother of two sons James and Joses is 


mentioned in Mark. xv. 40; and that the Hebrew ΘΠ and the Greek ᾽᾿Αλφαῖος 


are supposed to be different forms of the same name. This is probable but not certain. 
Matthew or Levi, moreover was also a son of Alpheus, and if the ellipsis in Ἰούδας 
Ἰακώβου (Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13) is to be filled up, as is commonly cone, by in- 
serting ἀδελφός, the Apostle Jude also was a son of Alpheus. Furthermore, if this 
Mary was also the mother of Simeon, another Apostle, we have the extraordinary fact 
that four Apostles, claimed by the advocates of this theory as the brothers of Christ, 
did not believe in Him, for John expressly informs us that His brethren did not believe 
in Him. (John vii. 3 sqq.). 

b. The assumption that Mary the mother of Jesus, and Mary the mother of James and 
Joses were séster's is founded on a solitary passage in John, which admits however of 
a very different and far more probable solution. It is Jno, xix. 25, which as punctuated 
and read by the advocates of the cousin-theory, enumerates the three Marys as 
spectators of the crucifixion. ‘Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and 
His mother’s sister Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene,” but the more cor- 
rect reading is “ Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother’s sister 
(Salome, the mother of John the Evangelist), Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Mag- 
dalene.’—We know from Matthew that Salome, the mother of Zebedee’s children was 
present at the crucifixion, and this indirect reference to his mother, accords with the 
usual delicacy of John. 

Instances of two sisters having the same name are indeed occasionally met with, but they 
are far from common; considered as a question of probability, it must be decided in the negative, 
and this decision will be corroborated by the other arbitrary and illogical’elements of this hypo- 
thesis. 

Let us look at it from another point of view. The Evangelists enumerate James, Joseph 
(for that is the true reading in Matthew) Simon and Jude as the four brothers of our Lord. The 
advocates of the cousin-theory allege that they were his cowsins, but were called his brothers. 
We read also of another Mary the mother of James and Joses, who is nowhere called the mother 
of Simon and Jude. Now because she had one son, or if you will, two sons, whose names were 
identical with those of the brothers of the Lord, it is inferred that she was the mother of the 
brothers and sisters of the Lord. But the most authentic codices and the most reliable critics 
pronounce Joseph to be the correct reading in Matthew, and this develops the extraordinary logic 
that because here is a mother of ἔσο sons one of whom has the same name as that of a son of a 
mother of fowr sons, THEREFORE she is the mother of the four. The acumen of Aristotle, surely, 
is not needed, to detect this fallacy —Add to this that the brothers of Jesus appear uniformly in 
the company of Mary, the mother of Jesus, that the Hebrew ΠΝ, the representative of the 


Greek ἀδελφός, is used only twice in a lax sense, and then only in the case of nephews, that 
the words ἀνεψιός, consobrinus, or cousin (Col. iv. 10 applied to Mark the cousin of Barnabas), 
υἱὸς τῆς ἀδελφῆς, sister’s son (Acts xxill. 26), and συγγενῆς, kinsman or relative form part 
of the New Testament vocabulary, that neverthless the Evangelists use the word ἀ δελφοΐ and 


II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 21 


not any of the new terms, that the brothers did not believe in Christ before His resurrection, that 
therefore they could not have been Apostles, and that after His resurrection, even as believers 
they are expressly distinguished from the Apostles, and the inference is all but irresistible 
that this whole theory, from beginning to end, is involved in chaotic confusion and endless con- 
tradiction. 

Much stress is laid by the advocates of this theory on the celebrated passage Gal. i. 19: “ But 
other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother.” Read and construed as the 
verse stands in E.V. it is argued that Paul here declares to haveseen at Jerusalem James, a brother 
of the Lord, who was an Apostle, that this must have been James of Alpheus or James the Less, 
because James the son of Zebedee was dead at that time, that here is a clear case of the word 
brother being used in the sense of cousin, and that consequently the Lord’s brethren are His cousins, 
the children of Alpheus and Mary. The passage bears however the very opposite interpretation 
and some of the best Greek scholars have shown, and we think conclusively, that we ought to ren- 
der “I saw none other of the Apostles (besides Peter to whom he had referred in the preceding 
verse) but I saw James, the Lord’s brother.” In other words Paul distinguishes James the Lord’s 
brother from the twelve. Still it is only fair to add that although James was not an Apostle, yet 
both on account of his exemplary piety and wisdom and on account of his relation to our Lord, and 
as first bishop of Jerusalem, he enjoyed apostolic dignity and authority. ‘That such was the case 
is evident from various passages in Acts, in the Epistle to the Galatians, from Josephus, Hegesip- 
pus and the tradition of the Eastern Church.” 

111. The only remaining theory is that the brothers of Jesus were His actual brothers, that 
is: the children of Joseph and Mary. This view is the most natural, but beset by dogmatical dif- 
ficulties. We will first state the arguments in its favour and then consider the dogmatical dif- 
ficulties. 

1. The language used by the Evangelists is such as to intimate that Joseph and Mary 
were man and wife. 

2. The term ‘first-born’ although of technical value and importing certain privileges, may 
fairly be construed as implying the existence of children born subsequently, especially if 
it is considered that the Evangelists record events as historians after those events 
had become history, and that if they had intended to say that Jesus was Mary’s only- 
born, it was as easy for them to select that term, which forms part of the N. T. voca- 
bulary as the ambiguous ‘first-born,’ which although susceptible of a non-natural in- 
terpretation, imports generally the existence of later-born children. 

3. The Evangelists mention brothers and sisters of Jesus. 

4, These brothers could not have been Apostles, for they continued to disbelieve in Jesus 
during His life-time. 

5. The hypothesis that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the children of Joseph and 
Mary simplifies the domestic relations of the holy family. 

6. The objection which is sometimes brought against this hypothesis that Jesus would not 
have commended his mother to Jon, if she had other sons to take care of her (Jno. 
xix. 26). “But why,” asks Andrews if James and Judas were Apostles and Hs cou- 
sins, sons of her sister and long inmates of her family, and it was a question of kin- 
ship, did He not commend her to their care? The force of the objection remains then 
unbroken on the cousin-theory. The true reasons why our Lord confided His mother 
to John and not to His brothers, seem to have been the following: 

a. The brothers did not believe in Him, and consequently could not sympathize with 
Mary in her great sorrow. 

ὃ. Between John, the most intimate friend of Jesus, who understood and appreciated Him 
better than all the disciples, and Mary there was the strongest bond of sympathy in 
their love of Jesus, and John was therefore most likely to uphold and comfort her with 
filial tenderness in her sad trials. 

John, moreover, was the couszn of Jesus, being the son of Salome, the sister of Mary, and 
the brothers of Jesus were probably married, as the notice of Paul in 1 Cor. ix’5, seems 
to imply. 


22 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


The last two points we do not urge as reasons, but merely state as matters of interest. 


These plain facts, drawn solely from Scripture, conflict however with the old and wide- 
spread view of the perpetual virginity of Mary and the feeling that it was lowering the dignity 
of the Saviour and that of Mary to admit the probability or even possibility of further descen- 
dants. To preclude the possibility of such an hypothesis was doubtless the ruling motive of 
those who gave currency to the apocryphal fiction that Joseph was eighty years old when he 
married Mary. 

The cousin-theory which may be traced back to Papias, although made current in the 
Church by Jerome, clearly originated in the desire to establish the superiority of the unmarried 
to the married state. Gnostic principles began early to prevail in the Church and to induce the 
desire to separate Christ as widely as possible from other men. To obliterate, if possible, any and 
everything He might be supposed to have in common with other men, was believed to add to 
His exaltation. This exaltation would naturally pass from Him to Mary, and with the devel- 
opment of Mariology and Mariolatry become an article of faith. Due allowance must also be 
made for the feeling “that the selection of a woman and that of a virgin to be the mother of the 
Lord, carries with it as a necessary implication that no others could sustain the same relations 
with her.” (J. A. Alexander). It is of course very difficult to account for the extent of this 
feeling, but there can be no doubt that it is not altogether free from an undervaluation of the 
honour and dignity conferred by our Lord on our common humanity by His Incarnation. The 
inspired writers of the New Testament seem to emulate each other in portraying the true hu- 
manity of Christ and in showing how He ennobled, glorified, and with reverence be it uttered, 
deified that nature which at the first came pure and holy from His creative Mind. It is surely 
an ineffably touching and consoling thought that the holy Jesus passed through every relation 
of human childhood and from having been a pattern of humility, modesty and forbearance to His 
brothers and sisters, from having borne with their impatience and want of sympathy, to evidence 
Himself in this respect also as our true Highpriest that He might be touched with a feeling of 
our infirmity.” And then as to Mary, her memory will not be less dear and sacred to us, as 
the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, than as the ever-virgin. Marriage is a divine 
institution and has been made doubly divine by the human mother of our Lord.— 


The question has from the earliest times been variously answered; the view that Jesus had 
actual brothers and sisters is as old as any of the other theories and we believe, with Neander, 
Winer, Meyer, Stier, Alford and Farrar that it accords best with the evangelical record, and 
barring dogmatical prejudice or feeling, is at once the simplest, most natural and logical solution 
of this otherwise hopelessly confused question, which fortunately is an open one in our Church 
and most of the Reformed bodies. 

Those who desire to stwdy this question are referred to ANDREWS, Life of Christ pp. 104- 
116. Axrorp Greek Testament, Introduction to’ Epistle St. James, Dr. ScHaFr’s excellent Essay: 
“Das Verhiltniss des Jakobus, Bruders des Herrn, zu Jakobus Alphet, Berlin 1843, his annota- 
tion to Lange’s Matthew pp. 256-266, and to my Article in the Princeton Review for January 
1865: “Are James the Son of Alpheus and James the Brother of the Lord identical?” —M.]. 


2. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


A. Notices which presuppose the early existence and reception of the Epistles in Clemens 
Romanus Ep. 1. ch. x.; in Pastor Hermas, Simitit. vili.6; in Irenzus, adv, Heeres, iv. 16. Abra- 
ham amicus Dei (Jacob. ii. 23). Tertullian adv. Jud@os Cap. ii.: Abraham amicus Dei. See on 
it Guerike, Jsagogik, p. 441, and Huther p. 24. 

B. Zestimonies. The ancient Syriac Peschito contains this Epistle. Clemens Alex. knew it 
according to Euseb. Hist. Hecl. VI. 14. He also alludes to James ii. 8 in Stromat VI.—Origen 
mentions the Epistle of James in Tom. 19 on John and occasionally calls it divina Jacobi Apos- 
toli Epistola. Homil. 13 in Gen. ete.—Dionysius of Alexandria appeals to it in several places and 
Didymtfs of Alexandria wrote a commentary on it.—Cyril of Jerusalem and J erome, Cat. 3 con- 


sidered it to be genuine (Guerike p, 442). 


» Il. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 23 
nnn en LESSEE 
C. Ancient doubts of its genuineness.—These were the natural outgrowth of the apocryphal 
Jewish Christian account of distinguishing James the son of Alphzeus from James the brother of 
the Lord. It is certainly not surprising (Kern supposes it 18) that the testimony of Hegesippus 
is wanting for the Epistle in Euseb. ii. 23, where he is only cited as the chronicler of the life and 
martyrdom of James. But Eusebius takes occasion to mention the Hpistle itself in order to add 
the observation that it was accounted spurious, as many of the ancients had neither mentioned 
it nor the Epistle of Jude; but that they were publicly read in most of the Churches. 
The reason adduced is clearly of little weight against the genuineness of the Epistle. Origen 
may at first have intended to give a faint intimation of existing doubt; but this is rather doubtful 
(see Guerike 443, note 4). Eusebius placing the Epistle among the Antilegomena simply proves 
that in his time its genuineness was not universally acknowledged; he himself appears to have 
essentially shared those doubts, owing to his indecision in his historical view of the person in 
question. The doubts stated by Jerome are now only regarded as historical references; the 
alleged contradiction of Theodore of Mopsuestia cannot be authenticated, but even if it could, it 
would only be the statement of a critical view belonging to a later period. 


D. Doubts at the time of the Reformation. Luther, in the preface to the Epistle of James 
A.D. 1522 says: “This Epistle of James, although rejected by the ancients (which is false) I 
praise and esteem good withal, because it setteth forth not any doctrine of man and drives hard 
the law of God (which is incorrect). But to give my opinion, yet without the prejudice of any 
one, I count it to be no Apostle’s writing, and this is my reason. First, because contrary to 
St. Paul’s writings and all other Scripture it puts righteousness in works (a misunderstanding ; 
and if it were so, how could he praise it and esteem it good withal?). “Lastly he thought that 
the Author was some good, pious man.” Yes, “some good pious man” who understood better 
how to warn Jewish-Christians of the insurrection of the Jews than Luther knew to warn: the 
Evangelicals of the insurrection of the peasants.—His opinion is couched in stronger terms in 
the preface to the Edition of the N. T. of 1524: “On that account the Epistle of James, compared 
with them (the Epistles of Paul and the remaining Epistles of the N.T.) is a veritable straw- 
Epistle. For it lacks all evangelical character.’ It is striking enough that Luther held also to 
the opinion that the early-deceased James, the son of Zebedee was the author of this Epistle. 
Similar opinions rejecting the Epistle found in the Table talk ( Zisch-Reden) proves that Luther 
retained this view to a later period although the respective passages were omitted in later editions 
of the New Testament. (See Huther p. 25). The opinion of Luther was followed by the Mag- 
deburg Centurvators, Hunnius, Althammer and others; among the Reformed by Wetstein. It is 
known that Luther’s view could not do justice to the book of Revelation and other books of Holy 
Writ; it was the enthusiastic prominence he gave to the doctrine of justification (the work to 
which he had been especially called), connected with his misapprehension of the general tendency 
of the Epistle and with the new born deep consciousness of evangelical liberty of thought as 
contrasted with exegetical tradition, that made him pronounce so embarrassed an opinion of our 
Epistle. In the Dorpat Magazine for Theology and the Church Vol. I. pt. 1. 1859, p. 152, von 
Oettingen reviewing Huther’s Commentary on the Epistle of James says concerning the fore- 
mentioned opinion of Luther: “This opinion of Luther not only has been recently adopted by 
the Tubingen school weiter for its tendencies but it has also been repeated by the Gnesio-Luthe- 
rans, as is proved by the following hasty statement of Strébel (in a review of Wiesinger’s Com- 
mentary in Guertke and Rudelbach’s Magazine for Lutheran Theology, 1857, II. p. 356. “No 
matter in what sense we take the Epistle of James, it is always in conflict with the remaining 
parts of Holy Writ.” Very justly von Oettingen expresses his censure of that opinion in the 
name of the Biblia Stroebeliana (see in Huther p. 28). In the Roman Catholic Church doubts 
were uttered by Erasmus and Cajetanus. 


E. Modern doubts. Forerunners: Faber, Bolten, Bertholdt: James wrote in Aramean, the 
Greek translation the work of another hand. 

De Wette, Introduction to the New Testament. It is difficult to see why James should have 
written an Epistle to all the Jewish Christians in the world. Its contents are ambiguous. It 
lacks personality. The missed contradiction of Paul is undignified. Ch. 11. 25 seems to refer to 


24 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. > 


Hebrews xi. 31 and consequently to betray a later author. How could James write such good 
Greek? For counter-statements see Guerike, Contributions, p. 160 ete. 

Schleiermacher:—Jntroduction to the New Testament, edited by Walde. He finds the opinion 
of Luther confirmed, the style in part ornate, in part clumsy and as to the contents of the Epistle, 
he finds much bombast.— 

Kern:— Zhe character and origin of thé Epistle of James, Tibingen Magazine 1835, 11. Why 
Hegesippus did not mention the Epistle? 

Baur :—“ Paulus,” p. 677; “Christianity of the first three centuries, p.96.”—On the ground of 
the well-known Ebionite hypothesis and of the assumption that the Epistle teaches a righteousness 
of good works against Paul. Schwegler in the train of Baur: “Zhe Post-apostolic Age, vol. I. p. 
413 ete. Reasons for the alleged spuriousness: 1, The want of individuality; 2, Christian anti- 
quity unacquainted with the Epistle and its later recognition as canonical; 3, the mild form of 
Ebionitism it sets forth; 4, the internal church-relations assumed in it; 5, its acquaintance with 
the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel according to the Hebrews.— 
Quite new, but also quite untenable.is here especialiy the discovery of Ebionitism. The very 
name of James, the address to the twelve tribes, the word synagogue for Church are adduced in 
proof of the Ebionitism of the Epistle; the rich tAobovoc-—are to denote the Gentile Christians. 
But in that case, ch. 11. 2 would make the congregations addressed by the author non-Ebionite, 
Notwithstanding the strong language used against the rich (Gentile Christians) the Epistle 
/ is alleged to be irgnical, and said to aim at effecting a compromise between Jewish and Gentile 
Christians. For further counter-remarks see Huther p. 301 and Reuss 3146, Note. Huther p. 
31 treats also Ritschl’s view of the Epistle of James (which has however been modified in the 2d 
edition) and mentions Rauch’s attack on the integrity of the passage ch. vy. 10-12, which has been 
repelled by Hagenbach and Schneckenburger (see Guerike p. 448). 

redner considers the Epistle genuine as the production of the brother of the Lord and denies 
the authorship of James the Apostle. But this point is decided by the right apprehension of the 
Author’s person (δ 1). Moreover it is to be noticed that Schott has revived the view of Bolten 
etc., that the Epistle is a free translation of the Aramean original; an assumption, devoid of all 
foundation. 

The circumstance of the Epistle not being generally known to the ancient Church at an early 
date may be accounted for by the following considerations : 

1, It was addressed to Jewish Christians (hence it occurs already in the Peschito, because in 
Syria in particular there were many Jewish Christians; this circumstance is rendered prominent 
by Ritschl) ; 

2, The Epistle, in its tendency, presented only few dogmatical points, whereas the ancient 
Church reverted especially to dogmatical points; 

3, The absence of the apostolic designation in the title and similar matter. See Guerike p. 
444, The chief reason lay probably in the circumstance that the consciousness of the concrete 
relation of the Epistle, which made it appear in its whole weight, became gradually less pro- 
minent. 

[Alford: “ On the whole, on any intelligible principles of canonical reception of early writings, 
we cannot refuse this Epistle a place in the Canon. That that place was given it from the first in 
some part of the Church; that in spite of many adverse circumstances, it gradually won that 
place in other parts; that when thoroughly considered, it is so consistent with and worthy of 
his character and standing whose name it bears; that it is marked off by so strong a line of dis- 
tinction from the writings and Epistles which have not attained a place in the Canon; all these 
are considerations which, though they do not in this, any more than in other cases, amount to 
demonstration, yet furnish when combined a proof hardly to be resisted, that the place where we 
now find it in the N. T. Canon is that which it ought to have, and which God in His Providence has 
guided His Church to assign to it.”—M.]. 


oink Il. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 25 
i Ὁ οὐ --  ς ς ὦ δοι μα ὦ 


3, OCCASION, DESTINATION AND OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE, ITS THEOLOGICAL AND STYLISTICAL 
CHARACTER. . 

We should be obliged to treat twice of the contents of this Epistle, were we to omit to con- 
sider first the question stated at the head of this section. For in order to gain a thorough appre- 
ciation of the full import and apostolical Yalue of this Epistle our exposition should be duly 
influenced by the character of James, by his relation to the Jews and to Jewish Christians, by 
Jewish affairs belonging to its date and by the Christian-prophetical stylistic which demanded an 
address to his people. To the circumstance, that the Epistle of James, in most instances, has 
been dissociated from all these vital considerations, is mainly to be ascribed the manifold misun- 
derstanding of the same. The consideration of the contents according to the leading thoughts 
and the total impression of the Epistle, to be sure, ought to precede the investigation relating to 
occasion, object etc., but the exposition of its historic genesis will enable us to understand it 
with reference to the whole of its glorious contents, that is, then also to set forth its contents in 
detail. , ' 

The title v. 1 shows that the Epistle of James was addressed to Jewish Christians in the 
widest sense of the term, for the whole people was only one diaspora (dispersion) viewed as a 
huge whole. The same remark applies to the First Epistle of Peter with reference to the Jewish 
Christians of Asia Minor and also to the Epistle to the Hebrews with reference to the Jewish 
Christians of Palestine—The date of the Epistle of James falls most probably (as we conclude 
from the developed condition of the Jewish Christian Churches) into the latest period of his life, 
about A. D. 62. The date of the composition of the first Epistle of Peter we fix with Thiersch 
(63-64) at about A. D. 64 (see my History of the Apost. Age, I. p. 148 and II. p. 574) not with 
Weiss and Fronmiiller A. 1). 54 or 55, because at the latter period the prolonged activity of Pe- 
ter at Babylon and the multiplication of Jewish Christian Churches in Pontius are entirely out 
of the question. To the same period, to A. 1). 62-64, belongs the Epistle to the Hebrews (see 
my Apostolic Age, 1.75; cf this Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, where for good 
reasons the date given is the interval between the death of James in A. D. 61 or 63, and the be- 
ginning of the Jewish war in A. D. 67). 

Said three Epistles addressed to Jewish Christians originated therefore in a period when the 
Jewish revolution against the supremacy of the Romans had already begun to germ and ferment 
in the minds of the Jewish people. The proper foundation of this revolution had already been 
laid by the erucifixion of Christ, but especially by the rejection of Christianity sealed with the 
execution of James (see my Apost. Age, Vol. Il. p. 427). Thereby the preserving and saving 
element had been separated from the Jewish nationality, which henceforth, developed into perfect 
pharisaism, stood arrayed in deadly enmity both against the pagans and the Christians. The 
pagan instinct, however, returned this antagonism also in its representatives, the Roman govern- 
ors and thus provocation and persecution increased on the part of the pagans, and fanatical 
commotions and tumults on that of the Jews. So already Felix, the proconsul, treated the Jews 
worse than his predecessors and the Jews in their turn resented his maltreatment by several in- 
surrections, especially under the leadership of an Kgyptian who took 30,000 men to the Mount 
of Olives. Similar jarrings and revolts were repeated under Festus. The Jews on the whole, 
restrained themselves as yet under the proconsulate of Albinus (A. D. 63-65). But the war 
broke out in A. D. 66 under Gessius Florus. The rupture among the Jews and Gentiles turned 
into open revolution first at Cesarea; immediately afterwards at Jerusalem and the flames of 
the most atrocious religious war spread on all sides, to Scythopolis, Damascus, Askalon, Ptole- 
mais, Hippo and Alexandria; everywhere the Jews were slaughtered by thousands. 

It must be assumed, that the same excited, enthusiastic and fanatical disposition flashed from 
Jerusalem through the entire Jewish diaspora and that the hope of miraculous deliverance and 
the impulse of revolutionary self-help and revenge conspired every where with their animosity 
against the Gentiles, who in their turn were filled with equal deadly hatred. 

Such was the situation. But now must be taken into account the powerful effect of such 
national sympathy and antipathy on the Jewish Christians. Nationally they were still Jews 

3 


26 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


and Jewish blood stirred and boiled in their veins. They were in common with the Jews at- 
tacked and tempted on the one hand, by the hatred, contempt and oppression of the pagans; and 
on the other by Jewish-national sympathy, by their yearning for deliverance and by their chili- 
astic, enthusiastic hopes. The national movementsof modern and quite recent times offer ap- 
propriate illustrations of the powerful influence of such a national revolutionary current on the 
individual members of the respective people. Thaf movement was consequently the great se- 
ductive alternative that lay before the Jewish Christians of that period. Standing aloof from the 
revolutionary movement, they were cursed and persecuted as apostates by their national breth- 
ren, We know from history how much the Christians had to suffer in this respect during the 
later insurrection of the Jews under Bar Cochba in the time of Hadrian. Bare sympathy on the 
otker hand with the chimerical enthusiasm of the Jews, was entering the road to apostasy (for 
they exchanged the faith in Christ for the hope of a pseudo-messianic deliverance), falling into 
unbelief of the justice of God in the judgment that was coming on their people and severing the 
bond of church-fellowship with the Gentile-Christians, while they were restoring religious fellow- 
ship with Christ-murdering fanaticism. 

Hence the Spirit of Christ on all sides warned them and confirmed their faith in this their 
situation; and the above-mentioned three Epistles are the documents of this guardian Spirit, and 
in this light alone can they be rightly understood. They are therefore the most appropriate se- 
quel to the prophetical warnings, cautions and exhortations of the eschatological speech of Christ 
in Matth. xxiv. 16 ete. 


Even if the revolutionary spirit had been less developed during the last days of James, his 
prophetical forebodings would sufficiently account for his hortatory Epistle (v. ch. v. 1); as ina 
similar manner a prophetical presentiment of the Church anticipated a dearth (Acts xi. 27); and 
foretold the imprisonment of Paul (Acts xxi. 10). 


James had the immediate and wide-reaching vocation to confirm the Jewish Christians, with- 
out incautiously delineating the impending revolution in colours too positive. Hence he issued 
a circular letter to the twelve tribes in the dispersiony 


This address has been variously interpreted: it is maintained that the Epistle addresses con- 
verted and unconverted Jews (Grotius, Wolf, Credner etc.), Jewish Christians and Gentile Chris- 
tians as divided parties (Kern), as a closed society (de Wette and others), Jewish Christians 
(Neander, Guerike, Wiesinger etc.). See Wiesinger’s Introduction. (The views, which assign to 
the Epistle a wholly particular destination, e. g. Noesselt: to the Christians at Antioch, see in 
Hertwig’s Tables p. 51). Huther (p. 12) lays stress on the consideration that the Author saw | 
only in Jewish Christians true Jews and that there did not then exist so sharp a separation of 
Judaism and Christianity. 

We rather think it necessary to lay stress on the circumstance that James, according to the 
relations he bore to his people, and as long as that people had not set the seal to their obstinacy 
in the last symptoms of their apostasy (viz.: the execution of their bishops and their chiliastic 
revolution against the pagan authorities which involved their renunciation of Christian salva- 
tion), not only saw in the Jews catechumens of Christianity by birth, but he also saw in the 
Jewish Christians the true Jews. Addressing therefore the twelve tribes, he did not address the 
Jews in a dogmatical sense as associates of the old religious communion, but he did address the 
Jews as his theocratico-national brethren, the noblest part of whom had already become his 
brethren in the faith and all of whom were cadled to become his brethren in the faith. His pri- 
mary object of course was to warn the Jewish Christians against taking part in the fanatical 
revolutionary spirit of the Jews, but surely his secondary purpose was to warn the Jews against 
being carried away by the hostility and oppression of the tyranny into revolt and the final falling 
away from the patience of Christ. We admit therefore the correctness of the following remark of 
Guerike (p. 435) “Strictly speaking the twelve tribes in the diaspora certainly denote only those 
living out of Palestine, but in a more general sense the term does not exclude the Jews living in 
Palestine and the contents of the Epistle show that the term is here used in the latter sense.” 

The point, therefore, on which James felt constrained to speak to all his brethren was to ad- 
vert to the fact that they were exposed to a great and manifold temptation and that they needed 


/ 


II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 27 
great perseverance in the spirit of Christ’s patience. ᾿ Especially he felt called upon to encourage 
believers (ch. i.); solemnly to threaten those who had thus far persevered in unbelief and self- 
righteousness (ch. v. 1); variously to instruct, warn and admonish the tempted and manifold- 
wavering brethren (ch. ii. etc.]. On the other hand he had to couch his warning against the 
chiliastico-political fanaticism of his time in terms sufficiently general and cautious in order to 
avoid the’suspicion of being mixed up with the political issues of the question, that is, he had to 
treat it on purely religious grounds. 

The further destination of his pastoral Epistle for all Jewish Christians, relatively including 
the Jews, accounts also for the careful Greek diction which is characteristic of the Epistle. It also 
explains the Hebrew-symbolical character of the Epistle whereby it is related to the prophetical 
style of the O. T. This character surely is wholly misunderstood, if the Epistle is made to yield 
the result that in the Churches, whom James addresses, the poor on account of their faith were 
oppressed by the rich, that the rich were flattered im their religious assemblies etc. As in ch. 1. | 
the twelve tribes represent the people of God in its present state of development of actual and | 
future Christliness,* as the ἀνὴρ δίψυχος denotes the man who doubtingly wavers between faith , 
and apostasy, so the poor represent the humble and those who believe through humility, but the 
rich denote the self-righteous and those who are unbelieving through self-righteousness. And 
again as in ch. ii. the synagogue describes the assembly of the congregation, and the rich man 
with a gold ring and a splendid garment denotes the proud, Ebionitising Jewish Christian para- 
ding his ring of the Jewish Covenant, while the poor man with a vile garment describes the Gen- 
tile Christian, so faith denotes here in the theocratic sense the Jewish theocratic rightness-of-be- 
lief (Thiersch, too strong: Jewish orthodoxy), while the work of faith on the other hand signifies 
the energy and consistency of life exhibited in faith-work, which is the evidence of living faith ; 
the New Testament faith, consistency of life, the work in grandi, which is the evidence of the 
vitality of the O. T. faith, but especially the N. T. faith as brotherly love towards Gentile Chris- 
tians (the poor brother, the poor sister). And as in ch. ii, the becoming teachers of many 
(πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε) denotes the doctrinal, propagandistic nature of the Jewish Christians 
and the Jews (v. Rom. 11. 17 etc.), so the fiery spark which grows into a great conflagration de- 
scribes Jewish fanaticism. In ch. iv. the wars and disruptions (E. V. fightings) probably denote 
not only disputes and sectarism, but the adulterers and adulteresses describe not such persons in 
a literal but in the O. T. religious sense, viz.: apostates or such as are inclined that way. As 
ch. iv. 13, 14 contains a prophetical allusion to the sad transformation of the gain-seeking Jewish 
diaspora, so ch. v. foretells the great judgment impending on the rich, on self-righteous Judaism. 
These hints may suffice to show that the character of the Epistle answers to its end and aim. 
For this very reason its specifically Christian character comes out only in general outlines. The 
wide-reaching destination of the Epistle would hardly admit of a too definite dogmatical 
treatment. 

That the receivers proper of the Epistle were really Christians is manifest from its fundamen- 
tal Christian tone: “Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ—brethren, beloved brethren,—he begat us 
with the word of truth—the good (E. V. worthy) name—the killing of the Just—the nearness 
of the Lord—” etc. see Huther, p.12.. That on the other hand these Christians were Jewish 
Christians is evident from “the synagogue” 11. 2; the prominence given to monotheism 11. 19; the 
enumeration of Jewish formulz of oaths v. 12 etc.; and still more from the characteristic features 
of Jewish improprieties which are denounced; such as pride of faith, fanaticism, conceit and such 
like ( Wiesinger, Schaff, Thiersch, Huther), 

As regards the place of writing, the Authorship of James determines also the place where he 
wrote the Epistle, viz. Jerusalem: ‘The conjecture of Schwegler that the real place of writing 
‘was not Jerusalem but Rome, is nothing but a fiction mvented in favour of his hypothesis.” 
Huther. a 


* The German has “in seinem jetzigen Entwicklungsstande gewordener und werdender Christlichkeit ”—the literal 
meaning of geworden is “that to which it already has attained,” of werdender “ that to which it is attaining, or which it is 
in process of becoming ;” actual and future seemed the best equivalents we could find without a lengthy circumlocution. 
Christliness is a word of my coining—I had to coin it, because the German Christlichkeit has no English equivalent or rep- 
resentative.—M.]. ' 


28 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


[Jerusalem was the centre of attraction to the Jews of the Diaspora; many of the Jewish 
Christians were doubtless in the habit of attending the feasts and thus centrally located, James 
had every facility of information as to the religious condition of those Jewish Christians and 
of oral or written intercourse with them.—The physical notices found in the Epistle support the 
supposition that the Epistle was written at Jerusalem. The author wrote not far from the sea, 
ch. i. 6; iii. 4; he lived in a land blessed with oil, wine and figs, 11]. 12; he was familiar with 
salt and bitter springs, 1ii. 11, 12; the land was exposed to drought, rain was a matter of great 
importance to the inhabitants, vv. 17, 18; the land was burnt up quickly by a hot wind (ch. i. 
11, καύσων, a name especially known in Palestine); the author names the former and the latter 
rain, πρώϊμος and ὄψιεμος, as they were called in Palestine, ch. v. 7. See Hug. Einleitung, ed. 4, 
p. 438 etc. and Alford, Prol. to James IIT, 2, 3.—M.]. 

On the date of the Epistle opinions are much divided. Pfeiffer (Studien wnd Kritiken, 
1852, Ch. L., p. 95), Schneckenburger, Theile, Neander, Thiersch, Hofmann, Schaff (and in less 
decided language also Huther) say that it was written before the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, 
but Schmidt, Guerike and Wiesinger maintain that it was written after it. Huther gives the 
ollowing reason: “After that time the Pauline doctrine that man is justified not ἐξ ἔργων 
but ἐκ πίστεως not only had become generally known but also had so profoundly moved the 
mind of Christendom, that it is inconceivable that James in view of this circumstance could ut- 
ter his ἐξ ἔργων ete. in perfect ignorance of it.” This reason may also be reversed thus: If James 
wrote this Epistle earlier in an anti-Pauline sense, he would not have declared at the Apostolic 
Council that he was in agreement with Paul. We ought rather to distinguish between the his- 
torico-theocratic sense (Monotheism) and the specifically-Christian sense of the word faith. The 
chief reasons for the later date of the Epistles, namely, shortly before the death of James, are 
these. The spread of Christianity through the entire Jewish diaspora, and the general recogni- 
tion of the authority of James by the entire-Jewish Diaspora in relation to the death of James 
(A.D 62-63) required to be fixed at the latest possible date ——Then we have the important conside- 
ration that a general temptation of all J ewish-Christendom to falling away from the faith arose 
for the first time with the first germinating beginnings of the Jewish revolution or with the more 
positive opposition of the hatred of the pagans to the fanaticism of the Jews. To this must be 
added the highly important consonancy in which our Epistle in this respect stands to the first 
Epistle of Peter and the Epistle to the Hebrews.* 


4, THE RELATION OF OUR EPISTLE ‘TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES, THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES, TO THE 
MOST HOMOGENEOUS EPISTLES VIZ. THE FIRST OF PETER AND THAT TO THE HEBREWS. ITS 
NEW TESTAMENT PECULIARITY. 


A, JAMES AND PAUL. 


The apparent contradiction between the doctrine of James (ch. ii. 24) and the doctrine of 
Paul (Rom, iii. 28; iv. 2) concerning justification and the question connected with it as to the 
relation of faith and works, did already cause Luther to be greatly staggered, and because he 
considered the contradiction as founded on fact, to induce him to pass the above-mentioned un- 
favourable opinion on the Epistle of James. In modern times theology has been much engaged 
with the discussion of the question whether or not James and Paul contradict each other. 

The answer of this question has occasioned a group of different questions : 

1. In fayour of a real contradiction are Luther and his immediate followers, and recently 
Strobel, Cyrillos Lucaris (see Neander’s History of the Planting etc., Bohn’s edition, Vol. I., p. 
357), de Wette, Kern, Lutz (Bibl. Dogmatik, p. 170), Baur, Schwegler. 

2. For a contradiction against the misinterpretation and the abuse of the Pauline doctrine 
on the ground of an essential agreement between Paul and James, are several ancient expositors, 
Augustine, Grotius (see his Annotationes ad N. T. 11. p. 973), Gebser, p. 214, and others. 

8. There is no contradiction either of Paul himself, or of the abuse of his doctrine; this view 
starts on the supposition that the dogmatical tropus of James, which differs from that of Paul, 


* Only for the sake of noticing it, we have to add that Schwegler has removed the origin of the Epistle to a late period 
of the second century. 


1. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 29 


ON. SU Ns UA de a aera eS ἘΞ ΞΕ ΞΕ ΣῈ ἈἐΞἘΞΈ ΞΟ ΞΞΞΣΞΣΞΕΣ 
took shape sooner than the latter—so Schneckenburger, Theile, Neander, Schaff, Thiersch, Hof- 
mann, Huther (p. 35). 

4. There is no contradiction, but an antithesis and difference of dogmatical tropus, Although 
according to its internal relations it is the first and earliest of the N. T., it does not follow that 
it must also have preceded the doctrine of Paul chronologically, Schmid, Wiesinger and 
others. 

‘Ad. 1. It has been supposed that the illustration of Abraham ch. ii. 21 was chosen inten- 
tionally in opposition to the application of the same illustration in Rom. iv. 1 ete.; and the illus- 
tration of Rahab, the harlot ch. ii. 25 in opposition to the application of the same illustration in 
Heb. xi. 31. The following circumstances, apart from the otherwise perceptible unity of spirit 
in the two Epistles, militate against the supposed contradiction. 

a. The historically-proven assent of James to the doctrine of Paul, see Acts xv. and Gal. ii. 

b. The manifest and demonstrable difference of James and Paul in the definition of the 
terms πίστις, ἔργα, δικαιοῦσθαι. 

c. The actual agreement of doctrine which follows from an unprejudiced conception of the 
differing points of view and from the exposition of the respective passages. For while 
with James πίστις does not denote orthodoxism, because this faith may be animated by 
energy of life or the evidence of works (ch. i, 25), it does denote the historico-theocrati- 
cal orthodoxy, which is to evidence its efficient power in consistency of life, indefatigable 
activity (ἐντέλεχεια) and energy of Christian deportment. And it is this very energy, 
which St. Paul calls faith, the evidence of which is its working by love. 
ἔργα with James are not the dead works of the law (ch. ii. 10) but the living evidence 
of faith in works (ch. ii. 8). If it is alleged that James had developed a defective idea 
of faith, it may be alleged with equal force that Paul has developed a defective idea 
of works, But both would be false. With Paul living faith as the work of works ex- 
cludes dead works: with James the living work-of-faith as the evidence of faith ex- 
cludes dead faith. Faith without works is dogma-righteousness, orthodoxism. Works 
without the foundation of faith are work-righteousness, ergzsm. 

But James as well as Paul acknowledges the δικαιίδυν ἐκ πίστεως; only he calls it Aoyi- 
ζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην (see ch. ii. 23) while he understands by δικαιοῦσθαι Paul’s δοκιμά- 
ζεσθαι, σφραγίζεσθαι. See Calvin ad loc. Huther, p. 127, and others; my Apost. Age, L., 
Ῥ. 171; the Article Jacobus in Herzog, p. 417. 

But his point of view is not the work-righteousnes of the Jews, but the dogma-right- 
eousness of the Jewish-Christians and Jews, a tendency which Paul also has distin- 
guished from the tendency of ergism, as one at once J ewish-Christian and Jewish. See 
Neander, Plant., Vol. 1., p. 358., Brickner on de Wette, p. 199." 

Ad. 2. It is not probable, that an abuse of the Pauline doctrine should have spread 
just among the Jewish-Christians, to whom James wrote. Neander, Plant. Vol. I. p. 359; 
Brickner, p. 189; Huther, p. 32. 

Ad. 3. The supposition that James’ dogma-tropus as related to Paul’s must be taken as be- 
ing undeveloped as to its forms (Neander, Schaff and others), cannot be proved. 

a. Because the circular Epistle of James cannot be regarded as a complete development 
of his system of Christian dogma. 

b. Because the use of gnomical and tropical forms in James alongside of the dialectical 
forms in Paul does not constitute an inferior degree of completeness, but rather the co- 
ordination of a Jewish Christian mode of teaching with the Gentile Christian mode of 
teaching of Paul. In like manner the historical conception of this view which assigns 
a very early date to the Epistle of James, has not been proved (see section 3). 

Ad. 4. The view advanced under this head, as to its most important features, is sufficiently 
conclusive from the foregoing explanations. 

On the other relations of Paul and James, relations of affinity and contrariety, which have 
been explained as relations of dependence and polemics, cf. Briickner on de Wette’s Commentary, 
p. 188. [The treatise of Bp. Bull, Harmonia Apostolica, discusses this whole question very fully 
and learnedly, and the eminent author reaches the conclusion that our Epistle is not contradic- 


80 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


tory, but rather supplementary to the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans and Galatians. Com- 
pare also on the same side Barrow’s Sermon on Justifying Faith, Works, Vol. IV., Serm. 5, p. 
123,—M.]. 


B. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES AND THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN GENERAL. 


Besides its evangelical destination, which this Epistle has in common with most of the Cath- 
olic Epistles, it shares with all of them the Jewish-Christian type of doctrine which puts dialec- 
tics in the background and gnomical and symbolico-figurative forms in the foreground (see Hu- 
ther, p. 21). Its gnomical mode of statement establishes its chief affinity to the Epistles of 
John, its symbolical expression establishes its affinity to the Epistle of Jude, the second of Peter 
(ch. ii.), and besides, to the Epistle to the Hebrews which is closely connected with the Catholic 
Epistles. 


C. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER AND THE EPIS- 
TLE TO THE HEBREWS, A TRILOGY, 


Above we have already pointed out the sole significance of this trilogy. They have in com- 
mon the tendency of earnestly preparing the Jewish Christians in the impending outbreak of the 
Jewish war for the great temptation to apostasy, to which they were exposed by the hostility 
and oppression of the pagans and the fanaticism and revolutionary spirit of the Jews. They all 
aim at strengthening the Jewish-Christian people for that great temptation and at warning them 
of the great apostasy (see above). Here James the Apostle [?] starts with the harmony of the 
Jewish law itself as necessarily leading to its perfection in the Christian law of liberty, the first 
Epistle of Peter starts with the fulfilment of the promise of the Old Testament-kingdom in the 
New Testament-kingdom of inheritance, while the Epistle to the Hebrews starts with the gupe- 
riority of the cultus of the New Testament to the covenant-cultus of the Old Testament. The 
warning of James describes the principal danger of his brethren as a double-mindedness gravita- 
ting at once towards God and the world and the breaking out in impatience the warning of Pe- 
ter delineates it as indecision and visionary enthusiasm (ch. i. 18), while the warning of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews characterizes it as unbelief, apostasy and rebellion. But the spheres of 
their operation also are different. The first Epistle of Peter is addressed to the Jewish-Christians 
in Asia Minor written at Babylon, the Epistle to the Hebrews is probably addressed chiefly to 
the Jewish-Christians in Palestine written at Rome or in Italy, the Epistle of James is addressed 
to the Jewish-Christians throughout the world, written at Jerusalem. 


D. THE NEW TESTAMENT PECULIARITY OF JAMES. 


Besides the references of our Epistle to the Old Testament, to the book of Jesus the Son of 
Sirach and to the Gospels in general (ch. i. 17 to Matth. vii. 11; i. 20 to Matth. v. 22; 1. 22 to 
Matth. vii. 21; i. 25 to Jno. xiii. 17 etc.), its references to the Sermon on the Mount also have 
been particularly noticed. See Briickner on de Wette, p. 187; Huther, p. 18—James, to be 
sure, exhibits the glorification of the Old Testament law into the New Testament law of the 
Spirit, of the inner life (see Messner) in perfect analogy to the manner of Christ in the Sermon 
on the Mount. And this then is also his peculiar dogma-tropus. It bears as much the character 
of the New Testament as does the dogma-tropus of Paul and that of John, but in respect of the 
development of the doctrine of Christ, it occupies the first place among the dogma-tropes of the 
New Testament, without ignoring however the specific features of the later dogma-tropes (see my 
Apost. Age, II. p. 577). And this is the peculiarity of James. The wisdom which had been 
personified individually in the Logos of Truth, is also to be personified in the life of believers by 
believing heart-decision and thereby to conduct them through the fearful ruin of apostasy into 
which the fanatical disciples of the double-hearted earthly wisdom plunge headlong (ch. iii. 15) ἡ 
it is to evidence itself in them as steadfast patience in the joyous expectation of the advent o 
Christ. To this mode of teaching answers the gnomical, New-Testament-Solomonic-calm ra- 
diance of his language, the festively sententious form of which exhibits an affinity to the language 
of John, although unlike the latter it is not the expression of a contemplative intuition, but that 


of a practical energy. 


II. THE EPISTLES OF JAMES. 31 


5. THE CONTENTS OF OUR EPISTLE. 


The theme of the Epistle is evidently contained in the macarism ch. 1. 12, ‘ Blessed is the 
man that endureth temptation etc.” Here it is noteworthy that the reference is not to man in 
general but to man in a sexual sense and that we read immediately afterwards ‘The wrath of man 
(ἀνδρός) worketh not the righteousness of God.” We confidently assume that the reference is to 
a temptation to which Jewish-Christian men were peculiarly exposed; viz.: the thought cherished 
by the Jewish men that the righteous judgment of God on the pagans would have to be executed 
by an armed insurrection against them. This fundamental theme is resumed in the final 
theme, ch. v. 7: “Be patient (persevering in long-suffering) therefore, brethren, unto the coming 
of the Lord.” 

The Salutation and Introduction, in the first place, correspond to the leading thought. In 
the Salutation the Apostle introduces himself as a bondman of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
intimating thereby that in virtue of this servile relation he was freed from the bondage under 
which the Jews were groaning (Jno. vill. 36). He addresses the Epistle to the twelve tribes of 
the dispersion because he wants to include in one category the Jews as yet unbelieving and the 
believing Jews, the category, that is, of theocratico-historical catechumens of Christianity, inas- 
much as the final historical hardening of Israel had not yet taken place, His Salutation is 
couched in the Greek form χαίρειν, and apart from the example of toleration indicated by the se- 
lection of this expression, this word serves also the purpose of introducing his first idea. They 
should not yield to the gloomy and desponding disposition which was animating the rebellious 
spirits, but rejoice conformably to their Christian faith (v. 2). 

The Introduction states that they should also rejoice in their versicolowred temptation (ποικί- 
λοις probably more than divers, manifold), use them for their proof [doxiwov—M.] and not to run 
to ruin by wavering. The means he recommends is prayer, but prayer in faith without doubting; 
consequently a firm and undivided heart. Along with this the brother, who is crushed by his 
humble lot (surely with particular reference to his national position), is to glory in his Christian 
exaltation; but the Jewish-Christian, conscious of his theocratico-national riches, is to glory in 
his lowness, This can hardly mean his poverty in spirit or his humility before God but his his- 
torical lowness, the bondage-form of his Jewish and Christian life of faith. For the time of glory 
has already gone by, the grass is withered and the flower has fallen. The confident rich man 
(the Jew in the pride of his theocratic riches) will fade away in his occupation or schemes. Ch. 
i, 1-11. 

The Apostle now expatiates on the theme of the Epistle viz. the exhortation to perseverance 
in temptation from ch. i. 13—v. 6. 

I, The most important admonition, then, the Apostle names first. Let them not in the en- 
thusiasm of self-delusion pervert their temptation into the cause of God, which was really done by 
the Jewish fanatics. Here James delineates first the contrast between the false, hypocritically 
decorated phantom of temptation and temptation in its true, hideous and deadly form; secondly 
the actual providential rule of God in its most universal character, who had made them, as 
Christians, the first-fruits of His creatures. Ch. i, 13-18, 

II. The second admonition warns them against fanatical zeal itself. The wrath of man [sex- 
ually—=avdpéc—M.] does not accomplish the decree of the righteousness of God. Its development 
must be traced to the rashness and recklessness of self-complacency. Do they wish to avoid it, 
let them not think that they are pure and rich but laying aside their uncleanness and overflow- 
ing riches of malice let them meekly yield themselves to the efficient operation of the implanted 
word.. As doers of this word they will effectually guard themselves against self-deception. But 
they must steadily contemplate this word and enter into it, as into the perfect law of liberty. 
The Jew considers himself to be religious [@p7oxoc—=observant of God’s outward service—M.,] 
in that his zeal of wrath gives the reins to his tongue; but their Christian true service 
[9pycxeia—outward service—M.] should be evidenced in their care of the orphan and widow 
(especially of the crushed people in its orphanage and widowhood) and their self-preserva- 
tion from the pollution of the world. Ch. i. 19-27. 


΄ 


82 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


III. The third admonition opposes thetr contempt of the pagans, especially also their con- 
tempt of Gentile-Christians, On this account James starts with faith in Jesus Christ, the 
Lord of glory which admits of no respect of persons. Hence we see in the man with a gold 
ring on his finger, in a splendid garment, the portrait of the Jewish-Christian or the Jewish 
convert according to Jewish notions, in the poor man, on the other hand, in a vile garment 
the portrait of the Gentile-Christian or of the Gentile convert. [Lange understands by the 
Jewish convert and the Gentile convert those whose conversion is going on, in process of 
being, but not yet completed—M.]. They ought to consider both as equals in their syna- 
gogue (assembly); yea, they should remember that those poor of this world are rich in faith, 
while those really rich are the proud Jews, their persecutors and the defamers of their Chris- 
tian name. They are therefore to observe the royal law “Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
(co-religionists in a higher sense) as thyself” and to have no respect of persons. The law is a unit, 
Now in supposing that as true Israelites they avoid the adultery of apostasy, while with their un- 
merciful fanaticism they kill their Christian Gentile brother (cf. 1 Jno. iii. 15), they are transgressing 
the whole law. In this form the law itself becomes a law of liberty; its living totality delivers from 
the bondage of its singleletters. In connection with this thought,—faith contrasted with works—de- 
notes further the theocratic, Jewish-Christian orthodoxy, while the works denote the living, ener- 
getic proof of faith. The monotheism of the Jew, says James, is altogether insufficient, for the dev- 
ils also participate init. True faith must prove its vitality in the work of love, especially in broth- 
erly love. The examples chosen in illustration are most telling. Abraham, sacrificing Isaac his 
son is a type of the Jewish-Christian who sacrifices his national claims; Rahab, the harlot is a type 
of the Gentile Christian, who came by the work-of-faith into communion with the people of God. 


ye 

IV. The Apostle, in the fourth place, considers it matter of great moment, to dissuade the Jews 
from their fondness for fanatical teaching, which was their characteristic both in their intercourse 
with the pagans in particular and with those of a different turn of mind in general (cf. Matth. xxiii, 
15; Rom. ii. 19). They transgressed particularly with their irrepressibly-busy, didactic tongue, 
inclined to condemn and curse. The consequence of such a tendency the Apostle shows to be 
an earthly, sensual and devilish wisdom, born of envying and strife; with this he contrasts hea- 
venly wisdom with the beautiful attributes of love and the blessing of peace. Ch. iii. 

V. The Apostle, in the fifth place, now indicates to the Judaistically prejudiced Jewish 
Christians and with them to the Jews the infallible mark whereby they may perceive that their 
stand-point is not true; fanatics, he says, live in strife and war among themselves as well as with 
others, The root of this quarrelsomeness, he says, are lusts and worldly desires, which in their 
sensual life are at war with one another; its fruit, disappointment and the failure of all their 
striving, contention and even of their prayer. Ch. iv. 1-3. 

VI. James now proceeds in the sixth place, to disclose the ground of those egotistical, pleasu- 
rable lusts. It is the apostasy of the (spiritual adulterers and) adulteresses from the living God 
by their worldly-mindedness; their friendship with the world (in a spiritual garb) is enmity with 
God. Here the portrait of Judaism appears in the foreground with increasing distinctness. It 
lacks the spirit which is opposed to hatred, the spirit of humility to which grace is accorded. 
Pursuant thereto are the exhortations which follow: Be true Israelites in relation to God; true 
subjects of God, truly praying and sacrificing to God (v. 8), truly purified and God-affianced (v. 
8), truly poor and humble in the sense of the Old Testament (vv. 9,10). Be ¢rue Israelites in 
relation to the brethren; avoid slandering, condemning and cursing! Be ¢ruve Israelites 
in your dispersion-life (Diaspora-life, so German.—M.]! Do not yield yourselves in blind confi- 
dence to your planning, to go from city to city with a view to traffic and gain, but realize your 
transitoriness and dependence on God! Otherwise all your knowledge of good will turn to sin 
and judgment (vv. 11-17). Ch. iv. 4-17. 

“VII. These admonitions, the Apostle concludes, in the seventh place, by a powerful denun- 
ciation of woe on the rich, doubtless on the Judaizing Jewish-Christians and Jews who called 
themselves poor but thought themselves rich in their Jewish privileges, and here the affinity of 
his mode of statement with that of the prophets, becomes quite prophetical. It contains the prophecy 
of judgment, of a judgment which, with the destruction of Jerusalem, soon afterwards came upon 


II. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 88 
A ΕΘΕ ΠῚ τ Ὁ στιν ἘΞ 5. Ὁ ΡΞ Ξ ΕΘΕ ΞΟ Ὁ  ΣΞΕΘ ΞΕΕΘ. 
Judaism, Let them weep, i. 6. be penitent. Their riches are corrupted etc., i.e. all their self- 
righteousness has turned to sin and disgrace. They confide in and boast of this treasure before 
the near day of judgment. But that which brings judgment rapidly near is the crying of the 
hire withheld from their labourers and reapers, the ingratitude to and the rejection of Apostles 
and believers, who had undertaken the harvest of Israel. The day of slaughter, which shall come 
on their pleasure-life, is nigh at hand, and has opened with the condemnation and murder of the 
Just, who now no longer arrests their running into destruction (ch. v. 1-6). 
Then follows the final theme and the conclusion. Once more he addresses the brethren. Let 
them in long-suffering patience persevere unto the coming of the Lord (v. 7). 
1. Encouragement thereto: the example of the husbandman waiting for the harvest 
(vv. 7, 8). 
2. Conditions of that patience. 
a. They must not murmur against one another in disaffection, 2. 6. they must not 
nourish in their hearts the spirit of fanatical hardness and alienation. Examples: 
the prophets; the patience of Job; the end of the Lord (vv. 9-11). 
δ, The excitement of swearing and complications by oaths they must avoid, and hallow 
their minds (v. 12). 
6. They must cheer their minds by prayer, praise, the help of the presiding officers of 
the Church, and the confession of sins (vv. 13-16). 
3. Elias the type of wonder-working [effective—M.] prayer, whose first prayer effected the 
miracle of chastisement and his second the miracle of mercy (vv. 17, 18). 
4, Conclusion, Exhortation containing a promise of blessing on the effort of reclaiming an 
erring brother. Every one should engage in this work, and whoever succeeds, does thereby 
save a soul from death and prevent the multitudinous evil of sin (vv. 19, 20). Ch. v. 9-20. 
The existing tables of contents do not exhibit a perfect, organical structure of the Epistle, be- 
cause the idea which animates all its separate parts, has not been laid down as the foundation of the 
Epistle. The construction of the Epistle has been treated in extenso by Pfeiffer, On the connection 
of the Epistle of James, Stud. and Krit., 1850, Part 1; in Wiesinger’s division in his Commentary, 
p.46; in Huther’s division in his Commentary, p.15; de Wette and Schleiermacher see neither plan 
nor order in the Epistle. See Briickner, p. 182 (his own exposition, p. 184); Schleiermacher, p, 421. 


6. LITERATURE. 


See Herpecerr, Enchiridion, I., p. 617. LinrentHar, Bibl. Archivarius, p. 784. WINER’s 
Handbuch der Theol. Literatur, I., pp. 268 and 271. Supplement, p. 42. Danz, Universal- Wer- 
.terbuch, p. 421. Supplement, p.51. Ds Werte, Jntrod. 6th ed. p. 362. Wiesinger’s Commen- 
tary, p. 45.—See General Works on the Bible. (Among the most recent works on the Bible is 
the Critical and Practical Commentary on the New Testament, by C. W. Nast, Cincinnati and 
Bremen, 1860) ;—also Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. 


Particular exegetical works. 

Roman CatHotic: Lorinus, 1622; Pricxvus, 1646. 

LUTHERAN: WINKELMANN, ALTHAMER, BROCHMANN, LAURENTIUs etc 

REFORMED: ZWINGLI, CALVIN, Coccetus and others. 

MopveErn: Benson, SEMLER, BAUMGARTEN, Herper, (Briefe Zweener Briefe Jesu in un- 
serm Kanon), Storr, Morus, Hensier, Horrineer, Port, ScHULTHEsS, GEBsER (Berlin, 
1828), SCHNECKENBURGER (1832), THEILE (1833), Kern (1838), J.J. CELLERIER (μια 
et commentaire sur l Epitre de St. Jaques, Geneve, 1850), A. NEANDER, Pract. Exposi- 
tion, edited by Schneider (1850), WrestneErR (Vol. VI. Sect. 1 of Olshausen’s Commen- 
tary), HurHer (Sect. 15 of Mryrer’s Comment,, 2d ed., 1863), BriickNER’s edition of 
DE WETTE’s Commentary, Vol. III., Part.1, 3d ἐῶν 1865. 

ee De Brief van Jac., eee door J. CLaRrssx, Amsterdam, 1802; M. Stuart, 
Amsterdam, 1806; Proeve eener Verklaring etc. door G. VAN Kosten, Amsterdam 1821; 
Jacobus etc. VAN Friesema, Utr., 1842; G. van LEEUWEN, 1855; VinKeE, 1861; Dis- 


94 


INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 
᾿ 


sertatio de Jacobi Epistole eum Syracide libro etc. convenientia, Griéningen, 1860; Re- 
cently appeared: H. Boumann, Comm. perpet. in Jacobi Epistolam, Utrecht, 1865. 

For THE PARTICULAR TREATMENT OF THE EPISTLE see ΗΈΙΒΕΝ, Fuacus, ΕΆΒΕΒ. 
Winer, I. p. 272; Danz, p. 421 ete.; Supplement, p.51. Wixstnaer, p. 46. Herrwia, 
Tabellen, p. 51.—We must also mention, Zhe Apocryphal Protevangelium of James, 
edited by Suckow (Breslau, 1841). 

FoR DOGMATICAL TREATMENT consult the works on Biblical or New Testament Theology in 
general, See the list in HagEnBAcH’s Zncyclopedia, 6th ed. p. 201. 

ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE APosTLES: LUTTERBECK, die Weutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe, 1852; 
ΜΈΒΒΝΕΕ, die Lehre der Apostel und Neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, 1856; History of 
the Apostolic Age, NEANDER, Scoarr, LanaE.—Rrrscau, Origin of the Old-Catholic 
Church ;—Scuarr, das Verhiltniss des Jacobus, Bruders des Herrn, zu dem Jacobus Al- 
phei, Berlin, 1842. 

For sPECIAL PRACTICAL TREATMENT see BALTHASAR KERNER, Jakobsstab oder Erklirung 
der Epistel Jacobi in 60 Predigten, Ulm, 1639, Harrmann Crerpivs, Jakob’s Schatz, 
oder 91 Predigten iiber die Epistel Jacobi, Frankfurt, 1694; DANIEL GRIEBNER, Erkla- 
rung etc. in 79 Predigten, Leipzig, 1720. Goxrztus, de allgemene Sendbrief des Apos- 
tels Jacobus verklaart en toegeeygent, Amsterdam, 1698; Similarly J ANssontvs, Green- 
ingen, 1742.—K. Braunsg, die Sieben Katholischen Briefe-—Die Briefe des Jakobus und 
Judas, Grimma, 1847; Jaxost, der Brief des Jakobus, ausgelegt in 19 Predigten, Ber- 
lin, 1835; Srrer, der Brief des Jakobus in 32 Betrachtungen ausgelegt, Barmen, 1845; 
DrasEKE, Predigten iiber den Brief Jakobi, 1851; VirpEBanpt, der Brief Jakobi in 
Bibelstunden, Berlin, Schulze, 1859 ; Jakobus, der Zeuge vom lebendigen Glauben, Hine 
Reihenfolge von Predigten δον den ganzen Brief Jakobi, von G. Porubszky, evang. 
Pfarrer in Wien, Wien, 1861. 

[English Commentaries on James. 

TuRNBULL, RicHarn, Exposition on the Canonical Epistle of St. James in 28 lectures, 4vo., 
Lond., 1606; Mayer, Joun, Praxis Theologica, or the Epistle of the Apostle James resolved, 
expounded and preached upon, by way of doctrine and use, 4vo., Lond., 1629; Manton, THom., 
D.D., A Practical Commentary: or an Exposition with Notes on the Epistle of James, 4vo., 
Lond., 1653. Repr. imp. 8vo., Lond, 1840; 8vo, Lond., 1842. 

See also Stantey, Zssays and Sermons on the Apostolic Age, Lond., 1852; the General 
Commentaries, those on the Apostolical and Catholic Epistles.—M.]. 


COMMENTARY. 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES? 


ia NT ΘΟ ΘΕΟΊ. 


THE SALUTATION OF THE SERVANT OF GOD AND OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST TO 


μι μα 


μι ΞΟ ὦ σὺ OCH δ bo 


THE TWELVE TRIBES IN THE DISPERSION. REFERENCE TO THE VARIEGATED 
TEMPTATIONS TO WHICH THEY ARE EXPOSED, AND TO THE JOYFUL DESIGN OF 
THE SAME: THEIR CONSUMMATION. 


Cuaprrer. [. 1-11. 


JAMES, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which 
are scattered abroad,* greeting. My brethren, count‘ it all joy when ye fall into 
divers temptations. Knowing ¢his, that the trying® of your faith’ worketh patience.* 
But let patience? have her perfect work,' that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting 
nothing." If any of you lack wisdom,” let him ask of God that giveth to all men 
liberally," and upbraideth" not; and it shall be given him.” But let him ask in faith, 
nothing wavering: for he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the 
wind and tossed. For’ let not that man think that he shall receive anything of 
the Lord. A doubleminded man" ‘s unstable in all his ways'*. Let the brother of low 
degree” rejoice?! in that he is exalted.* But the rich,* in that he is made low™: be- 
cause as ὑπο flower of the grass he shall pass away. For the sun is no sooner risen® 
with a burning heat”, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and 
the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his 
ways.” 29 


[Tirtz. 1 Eusebius ends his account of James the Just thus: τοιαῦτα καὶ Ta κατὰ Ἰάκωβον οὗ ἡ πρώτη 
τῶν ὀνομαζομένων καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται. Hist. Eccl. ii.23. A.C. Sin. 
omit the {{{16.--Μ.] : 

Verse 1. [2é€v τῇ διασπορᾷ. In the dispersion—M.] 
(Sxatpecv. Lange “Freudengruss,” Freude zum Gruss—Salutation of joy, joy the burden of his saluta- 
tion; the English “ greeting” is sometimes used in the same sense; so de Wette, van Ess etc.—M.] 
Verse 2. [4 The Codex Colbertinus has ἡγεῖσθε. ποικίλοις, literally, versicoloured.—M.] 
[5 The whole verse in Lange’s version, “Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into divers (variegated) 
temptations.”—M.] 
Verse 3. [9γινώσκον τε ς-ϑῖ ποθ ye know. δοκίμιο ν-ε:ργοοῖ.---Μ.] 
7 The omission of τῆς πίστεως according to Cod. B. has been dropped on good grounds by Tischendorf, 
according to the decided majority of MSS. A.C. G@. ete. [It is inserted in A. B. C. K. L. Cod. Colb. Cod. 
Sin. Vulg. Syr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. etc.—M]. ‘ 
[8 ¥70movyv—endurance. Lange’s version. “Since ye know that the proof of your faith worketh en- 
durance.”—M.] 
Verse 4. [9 v0” 0v y=endurance.—M.] 
bt ἔργον τέλειον-Ξα perfect work.—M.] 
1 Lange’s version: “ But let endurance have a perfect work (the perfect operation of Christliness) that 
ye may be perfect and entire people (Christians), in nothing deficient (verkuemmert, stunted).—M.] 
Verse 5. Πβλείπεται copias=falls short of wisdom.—M. |] 
3 am @s—a, liberally, ὃ, sincerely.—M.] 
μὴ OverdiGovtos—upbraideth not, z.e. who gives without exprobration.—M. ] 
Lange’s version: “ But if any of you is deficient in wisdom, let him ask it from the God who giveth to 
all men (also to the pagans) sincerely (without reservation and delusion) and upbraideth not with it 
(turns it not into the disgrace of the recipients, according to the notion of work-righteousness), and it shall 
be given to him.—M.] 
Verse 6. Πμηδὲν Staxptvomevos—nothing doubting, not in the least (Lange) doubting.—M.] 
17a Lange’s version: “ But let him ask in faith, not in the least ( faltering) doubting, for he that doubteth is 
like a wave of the sea, agitated by the wind and tossed hither and thither.”—M .] 
Verse 7. [17> Lange renders y a4p—=also, but we prefer “mor let that man etc.”—M.] 


36 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


Verse 8. [1819 Lange’s version: “A double-minded (faltering) man: a seditious (excited) disturber of peace in all 
his ways.” But this rendering is too fanciful; we prefer therefore the strictly grammatical rendering : 


“ A two-minded man, unstable in all his ways,” takin 


2lxkavxac8w=glory.—M.] 


the verse in apposition with νυ. 7.—M.] 


Rev τῷ ὕψει avtov=—in his exaltation. “But let the brother who is low glory in his exaltation.”—M.] 


Verse 9. : ὃ ἀδελφὸς ὁ Tametvos—the brother who is low.—M. 


Verse 10. [236 tAov¥avos=the rich man.—M.] 


[24 Lange understands asecond “ glory,” makes the passage ironical, and renders “ but the rich in his humilia- 


tion.”—M. ] 


[3 ὡς ἄνθος xoptov—=as a flower of the grass.—M.] 


Verse 11. 


26 The Aorist with its narrative force should be retained.—M. 


[32 καύσων may mean the dry parching East wind, Kadim, but “the burning heat” of E. V. is very feli- 


citous.—M.] 
2 πορείαις. 


A. and several lesser MSS. read πορίαις, an orthographical blunder, according to 


Schneckenburger, because there isno noun wopia witha fixed meaning. ἱπορείαις is stronger 
than ways; it denotes the eager pursuit of some business or pleasure.—M. | 

[39 Render the whole verse, ‘‘ For no sooner rose the sun with the burning ‘heat (wind) and dried up the grass 
and the flower thereof fell away and the beauty of its appearance perished; thus also shall the rich 
man wither in his ways” (journeyings something like Lange’s “Gliicksfahrten”).—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


1. Introduction. Analysis. The address and 
salutation; v. 1.—Reference to temptation as a 
proof of endurance tending to joy: vv. 2-4.—The 
means of endurance, wisdom; hence deficiency 
in wisdom to be met by the prayer of undoubting 
faith; vv. 5, 6.—Caution against instability; vv. 
6, 7.—Particular advice to the lowly and to the 
rich (in their own opinion); vv. 8-10.—The fate 
of the rich; y. 11. 

Ver. 1. Address and Salutation. James, (on 
James, see Introduction above) servant of 
God, applied in the widest sense to Christians 
in general (1 Pet. ii. 16; Eph. vi. 6), denotes in 
the narrower sense, in the official use of the 
word, apostolical men (Phil. i. 1); but here the 
word in its fullest weight signifies not only the 
head of the church at Jerusalem, but also the 
Apostle whose special work lay among the Jewish 
Christian and the Jewish Dispersion (of which 
Jerusalem was the centre). Rom. i. 1; Tit. i. 1. 
[Oecumenius: ὑπὲρ πᾶν δὲ κοσμικὸν ἀξίωμα οἱ τοῦ 
κυρίου ἀπόστολοι τὸ δοῦλοι εἶναι χριστοῦ καλλωπι- 
ζόμενοι, τοῦτο γνώρισμα ἑαυτῶν βούλονται ποιεῖσθαι, 
καὶ λέγοντες, καὶ ἐπιστέλλοντες καὶ διδάσκοντεϑ8.----Ν].1. 

Of God and of the Lord.—0Of God not the 
attribute of Jesus Christ, as some expositors have 
rendered, but God the Father and the Lord Jesus 
Christ répresented as wielding one dominion (cf. 
Jno. xvii. 3); thereby James also wisely takes 
together the Old Testament and the New. The 
Apostolical and Christian office is one service; 
however not service rendered to man but service 
rendered to God and Jesus Christ with undivided 
consciousness, obedience and operation. [ Oce. 
“Feov μέν͵ τοῦ πατρός" κυρίου δὲ͵ τοῦ υἱοῦ." Bengel: 
“ videri potuisset, si Jesum sepe appellaret, id ex am- 
bitione facere, cum esset frater Domini. Atque eo 
minus novit Christum secundum carnem.”’ Itis cer- 
tainly remarkable that James mentions Christ only 
here and in ch. 11, 1, while in his speeches (Acts 
xv. and xxi.) he does not name Him at all.—M. ] 

To the twelve tribes in the dispersion. 
—That is, in their Christian calling, and in be- 
ing called to Christ. To Jewish Christians pri- 
marily (so Laurentius, Hottinger, Schnecken- 
burger, Neander and others), but, secondarily 
also to the Jews, as far as their adoption of Chris- 
tianity had not yet been given up (sofern sie noch 
nicht aufgegeben sind als werdende Christen). See 
Introduction. As yet all were treated as the 
theocratico-ideal unity of the people of Israel 


called to (the reception of) thefaith. Of course 
they are distinguished from the Gentile Chris- 
tians (against Huther; see Wiesinger). 

The twelve tribes (τὸ δωδεκάφυλον Acts xxvi. 7) 
Matt. xix. 88; Rev. vii. 4-8, etc. The dispersion, 
see Deut. xxx.3; Nehem.i. 9; Ps. clxvii. 2; Jno. 
vii. 35, ete. 

Greeting.—yaipew, the Greek form of saluta- 
tion (χαίρειν se. λέγει 1 Mace, x.18; 2 Mace. ix. 
19); used also in the Apostolical decree Acts xv. 
23 (to which Huther, following Kern, rightly 


calls attencion), The Hebrew D) oy Is. xlviii. 


- 
22 etc. Cf. the forms of salutation used by the 
other Apostles; as here, they always correspond 
with the fundamental ideas of the several Epis- 
tles. James desires to preserve to his brethren 
the true joy and to become instrumental in their 
securing it. Hence yaipew of v. 1 relates to 
χαρά v. 2, which we seek to express in the trans- 
lation, ‘‘Salutation of joy (Hreudegruss).” [See 
above in Appar. Crit. v. 1.—M.]. 

Ver. 4. Reference to the temptation and its de- 
sign. All joy.—aoca χαρά, not as some of the 
older expositors render ‘the highest joy,” but 
all joy, joy throughout (ὅλως Carpzoy., Huther ; 
entire joy) unless indeed the joy, as an all-sided 
one, is to correspond with the ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς 
[‘‘all sorts of joy,” ‘all conceivable joy,” Al- 
ford; ‘‘rem revera omnique ex parte letam,” Theile. 
—M.]. But this χαρά is not mere gaudendi ma- 
teria (Huther): rather, they are to convert the 
objective substance of joy into subjective riches 
of joy. ἡγήσασθε is therefore emphatic. [The 
repetition at the beginning of a verse or sentence, 
of the last word in the one preceding, called by 
grammarians duadiplosis is characteristic of the 
style of James; e.g. χαίρειν, χαράν v. | and follow- 
ing; ὑπομονήν, Vv. ὃ; λειπόμενοι, V.4; διακρινόμενος, 
v. 6; compare also y. 13, 19, 21, 22, 26.—M.]. 

My brethren.—Primarily used to denote 
community of faith, but here also community of 
theocratic nationality (see ch. i. 16, 19; ii. 5; iv. 
11; v. 7, 9, 19). [Wordsworth remarks that 
‘“‘this address is very suitable in an Epistle like 
the present, characterized by the language of 
stern rebuke; inspired like the reproof of St. 
Stephen, by the Spirit of Love. James, ‘the 
Lord’s brother,’ having the Spirit of the Lord, 
addresses even them as ‘brothers.’””—M. ]. 

When ye fall into divers temptations.— 
These πειρασμοί are the chief motive of the 
Epistle. And certainly they are not only in a 
general sense the θλίψεις which an unbelieving 


CHAP. I. 4-11. 


37 


world prepares for believers (Luke viii. 13; 
Matth. xiii. 21 (Huther); nor are they parallel 
to 1 Pet. i. 6. Still less are they in essential 
antithesis to πειράζεσθαι vy. 13 (as Wiesinger 
thinks), the antithesis is at the most that of 
objective incitement and its corresponding sub- 
jective irritability. It is a very definite, con- 
crete idea, the elements of which may be gathered 
in part from the circumstances of the time (see 
Introduction), and in part from the Epistle itself. 
The Jewish Christians were then tempted, on the 
one hand by the hatred of the pagais, on the 
other by the national fanaticism of the Jews 
(an alternate odiwm generis humani), and their 
ever-rising chiliastic desire of rebellion; they 
were tempted to participate in the antipathy to 
the pagans and to transfer it to the Gentile- 
Christians, to sympathize with the visionary 
Jewish national sentiment and thus to be again 
surprised by the old legal service. They were 
tempted to Ebionitism, which was already germi- 
nating (ch. ii), and beyond it to zealotry (ch. iii), 
to insurrection, (ch. iv.), and to apostasy (ch. v.). 
The temptation came therefore from every side 
and took the most variegated shapes of alluring 
and threatening, while their hereditary Judaistic 
lust presented a counter-impulse (v. 18.). Thus 
the one great πειρασμός resolved itself into the 
πειρασμοὶ ποικίλοι. Now since the adjective ποικί- 
Aocg denotes not only the diverse, but primarily 
the variegated, it probably contains an allusion 
to the manifold-dazzling glitter of colours in which 
the Jewish-Christian and Jewish temptations 
presented themselves and whereby they might 
even appear in the guise of Divine revelations 
and prophetical warnings urging them to be 
zealous for the honour of God. Into the midst of 
such temptations they had fallen; on all hands 
they were surrounded by them (on περιπίπτειν 
consult the Lexica and Huther), [περιπίπτειν to 
fall into the midst of anything, so as to be wholly 
surrounded by it. Luke x. 30; Acts xxvii. 41. 
So ὅστις ἄν τοιαύταις ξυμφοραῖς περιπέσῃ Plato, 
Legg. 9, 877. ὁ; μεγάλοις ἀτυχήμασιν ὑπ’ Αἰτωλῶν, 
καὶ μεγάλαις συμφοραῖς περιπεσόντες Polyb. p. 402, 
1.5; πανικῷ περιπεσόντες, Ib. p. 670, 1. 63 λῃστᾶις 
περιέπεσε Diog. Laert. 4, 50; κακοῖς, 2 Mace. x. 
4, etc.—M.]. 
believers to turn by proof (δοκιμῇ) into spiritual 
joy (Acts iv. 23; Rom. y. 3, etc.) was conse- 
quently in an eminent degree peculiar to this 
great temptation. But this temptation did doubt- 
less bring many an inconstant Jewish-Christian 
to ruin before the Jewish war, as did that under 
Bar Cochba. 

Ver. ὃ. Since ye know that the proof of 
your faith worketh endurance.—The Parti- 
ciple γινώσκοντες explains ἡγήσασθε and indicates 
by way of encouragement the manner how they 
might turn the heart-grief of the proof into joy 
(hence neither ‘“‘and know” (Luther), nor “for 
you know” Pott). Td δοκίμιον (found only here 
and 1 Pet. i. 7) may mean the medium of proof 
(the proper signification of δοκιμεῖον, which occurs 
as a different reading of this passage, also as 
opposed to δόκεμον), but also proof (δοκιμή) as the 
result of the test. Huther following Oecumenius 
insists upon the latter sense, Wiesinger with 
Semler, Theile and others, the former. And 
rightly so, although in 1 Pet. i. 7 the word 


The design of every affliction οἵ 


signifies proof; for this δοκίμιον is designed to 
effect the endurance consequent upon δοκιμῆ. 
Wiesinger rightly cites Rom. y. ὃ, 4, where θλίψις 
effects ὑπομονῇ, etc. Huther says that then we 
ought to have τοῦτο τὸ δοκίμιον. But the tempta- 
tion and the proof are not purely identical. The 
tempting element of the proof emanates from the 
evil one, while the proving element of the proof 
comes from God. Temptation is proof under the 
aggravating codperation of evil incitement to 
evil. This settles also the objection that tempta- 
tions may result in failure (of proof); for temp- 
tation as a test ever contemplates proof on con- 
dition of good behaviour. It explains also, how 
in the concrete manner of the Scriptures proof 
may be described as temptation (but with refer- 
ence to existing difficulties in the proof, Gen. 
xxii.), and temptation as proof. Οπ κατεργάζεσθαι, 
to work, effect, see Rom. v. 3 and other passages; 
ὑπομονή manifestly denotes here endurance.— 
Baumgarten, Theile, Wiesinger, Huther: The 
μένειν ὑπό standing one’s ground in temptation. 
Schneckenburger remarks that if ὑπό be empha- 
sized we get the idea of patiertia ac tolerantia 
malorum, if μένειν, that of constantia, firmitas, 
perseverantia. 

Ver. 4. But let endurance have a perfect 
work.—Wiesinger: The emphasis is on τέλειον. 
The majority of commentators understand the 
perfect work as the perfecting of ὑπομονή itself. 
So Huther, Wiesinger: the proof of ὑπομονή (cf. 
1 Thess. i. 8). Huther: ὑπομονῇ is not only 
passive but also active. This active ὑπομονῇ is 
not only to persevere unto the end (Luther: Let 
patience abide firm unto the end: similarly Cal- 
vin, Jerome and many others); ὑπομονῇ is to be 
deficient in nothing, neither in joy (Bengel) nor 
in any essential point; especially, wisdom, confi- 
dence, etc.—But James evidently contemplates 
not only inward demeanour but also and chiefly 
the outward exhibition of the same, which he 
deplored to see manifoldly omitted. Hence that 
interpretation is right, which distinguishes the 
perfect work, viz., the accomplishing of endur- 
ance, as the proof of endurance from endurance 
itself. So Erasmus, de Wette and others; but 
these commentators err in limiting this outward 
proof of endurance to something general, viz.: 
the exhibition of morality, etc. (see Huther). 
But James in his Epistle looks at a definite object. 
The ἔργον τέλειον by which the Jewish Christians 
were to verify their endurance consisted accord- 
ing to ch. ii. in the unreserved acknowledgment 
of their Gentile Christian brethren, and accord- 
ing to ch. iii., iv., v. in their open rupture with 
judaistic faith-pride and fanaticism. Yes, James 
cherished the hope of gaining the Jewish Chris- 
tians and along with them even the Jews them- 
selves, to a greater or less extent, for this perfect 
work of submitting to the practical results of the 
Christian life. But if the more general sense is 
preferred, we have the meaning that Christian 
endurance must evidence itself in the full carry- 
ing out of the practical consequences of the 
Christian faith. An ἔργον τέλειον of the ὑπομονῇ 
in our day would consist in the thorough acknow- 
ledgment of Christian humanism and the thorough 
renunciation of the spirit of sectarianism and 
fanaticism. ’Eyérw is decidedly emphatic. To 
this endurance must hold, this it must receive, 


38 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


acquire and this it must have to show. It is 
therefore at once=xparteirw (Schulthess) and 
παρεχέτω (Pott). 

That ye may be perfect and entire ;—iva 
decidedly expresses the word [used in the telic 
sense.—M.], and is explained by ch. ii. 22. 
πέλειοι and ὁλόκληροι are not altogether synony- 
mous (Huther), although the LXX. use both for 


Don. The former expression denotes per- 


fection in the sense of completed development or 
vitality, the latter perfection in its completed 
manifestation. [Alford defines ὁλόκληρος as 
‘‘that in which every part is present in its place,” 
and cites Plato, Zim., p. 44, ὁ. and Corp. Inscrip. 
353, 26.—M.]. But it denotes here specifically : 
If you want to become entire Jews and close the 
entire Jewish development, you must become 
entire Christians; but if you want to sustain the 
character of entire Christians you cannot dis- 
pense with the mark of perfect fraternization 
with the Christians, also with Gentile-Christians, 
and that of being opposed to the world, and also 
to the judaistic world. For the τέλειος is one 
who has reached his τέλος, the ὁλόκληρος one, cui 
totum est, quod sorte obtigit (Wahl=nulla parte 
mancus). The Jew was by origin a symbolic 
κλῆρος ; asa Christian he was to become a real 
κλῆρος and thus ὁλόκληρος. The primary refer- 
ence here is manifestly neither to moral perfec- 
tion in general (Huther), nor to perfection here- 
after, but to the rudimental [German: princi- 
viell] perfection of the faith of Christians as 
Christians; but the expression of James involves 
also the rule of absolute Christian perfection. 

In nothing deficient ;---λείπεσθαι means 
primarily to stay behind, to be inferior to an- 
other, but also to be wanting, deficient in a thing 
Ne 5). The latter sense is advocated by Theile, 

e Wette, Wiesinger, Huther with reference to 
v. 5 and 1 Cor. i. 7, the former by Storr, Augusti 
and others, whose view we consider correct not- 
withstanding the modified sense of the word in 
v. 5. For the opposite of having reached the 
end, or of being τέλειος is just the having stayed 
behind. The decay consequent upon quiescence 
and retrogression, the very characteristics of 
Ebionitism developed at a later period, and of 
Nazarite-Christianity, is the primary idea which 
corresponds with the connection of the whole 
Epistle. The Jewish people itself became most 
emphatically the λειπόμενοι of the world’s history. 
James with a prophet’s eye foresaw all this 
growing (werdend) decay. It springs indeed 
from a guilty deficiency in spiritual things or at 
least from a deficiency that might have been 
avoided, a point to which James refers imme- 
diately after. The sequel moreover shows that 
he sees in a perfect outward proof of life the full 
expression of character. 

VV. 5, 6. Wisdom a condition of endurance ; 
orayer for wisdom in undoubting faith. 

But if any of you;—<i dé points hypotheti- 
cally, and with reference to individuals, to a 
manifold probable or rather perceptible deficiency 
in general. Deficiency of wisdom has the form 
of the Judaistic and Ebionite element. 

Deficient in wisdom.—Xo¢giac without the 
Article acknowledges in a forbearing manner this 
lack of wisdom, supposing the deficiency to exist 


only in part. Oecumenius defines wisdom as 
TO αἴτιον Tot τελείου ἔργου, Huther as the insight 
of the problem of life as a whole as well as in its 
particular phases, which incites us to work. The 
reference here is not only to the Proverbs of 
Solomon, the Wisdom of Solomon and Jesus the 
Son of Sirach. The New Testament stadium of 
theocratical insight was objectively wisdom 
manifested in person (Matth. xi. 19), and there- 
fore subjectively the right perception of the 
signs of the time and the christological fulfilment 
of the theocracy in the Church as well as in the 
faith of individuals.* The distinct relation of 
this want of wisdom to the temptations (Calvin) 
cannot be denied with Huther, although, wis- 
dom, to be sure, must not be identified with en- 
durance. As it is a fundamental condition of 
the same, so it is also one of the chief modes of 
its exhibition according to ch. ili. 17. 

Let him ask from the God.—See Matth. 
xx. 20; Acts iii. 2; 1Jno.v.15. The further 
definition shows how important it is that real 
prayer must be free from the admixture of any 
conception which obscures the holiness and good- 
ness of God. The Judaizer did also pray, but his 
conception of the Deity was a Jewish God, par- 
tial, legal and measuring His blessings according 
to merit. The position of the words τοῦ διδόντος 
θεοῦ (Cod. A. τοῦ θεοῦ tov διδόντος) gives prdmi- 
nence to the idea that God is a giving God (Hu- 
ther). See v.17. Wiesinger: ‘Who is known 
to give.” The senseis: a giving comprehending 
every thing that is good, hence no object is indi- 
cated (Gebser and al). 

To all._—Huther with Calvin and others sup- 
ply τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν; but God’s giving in the most 
general sense may not be measured by man’s ask- 
ing, although He is wont according to the meas- 
ure of asking and beyond asking to give good 
gifts and even the Holy Spirit. [Any and every 
qualification of πᾶσιν reflects on the graciousness 
of the Giver.—M. ]. 

Sincerely.—d7/éc occurs only here in the New 
Testament. Huther [and Alford—M.] renders 
simply and sees in it an exclusive reference to the 
gift (nothing else is added to it with reference to 
Wisd. of Sol. xvi. 27), but the reference is not to 
the quality of the gift, butto the mode of giving; 
on this account the definition candide, sincere 
(Kerne, Theile and others), is preferable. Sin- 
cere (pure) giving is opposed to calculated giving 
which according to the view of the law, .is at 
once suspicious and half compulsory. It refers 
indirectly to the source of benignitas (Bede and 
al.) and also to the liberality of giving (afluenter, 
Erasmus and al.) [Wordsworth explains: ‘who 
giveth ἁπλῶς, liberally, that is, sinw laxo, expand- 
ing the lap of his bounty and pouring forth its 
contents into your bosom. Cf. 2. Cor. viii. 2; 
ix. 11, and the use of the word ἁπλοῦν, dilatare, 
by the LXX. in Is. xxxiii. 23; and therefore the 
word ἁπλῶς is rendered affiuenter here by the Vul- 
gate, and copiously by the Syriac version.”’—M. ]. 
"hae eee re I eee Ὁ 


* The Jews indeed had already before that time been defi- 
cient in the right comprehension of the Solomonic doctrine of 
wisdom, that is, of the universalism of the Old Testament, 
and for this very reason they had misunderstood and misin- 
terpreted the Davidic Messianism froma particularistic point 
of view; just as Evangelical theology for the same reason 
has fallen short of its task in consequence of not sufficiently 
appreciating Christian humanism. 


CHAP. I. 1-11. 


39 


And upbraideth not with it.—Negative 
explanation of the preceding or of that which is 
consequent upon God’s sincere giving. Wies- 
inger also explains μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος with Luther: 
‘cand upbraideth none with it” with reference to 
Sir. xli. 28: μετὰ τὸ δοῦναι μὴ ονείδιζε ; ch. xx. 15; 
xviii. 17 (see Huther’s note from Cicero). Hu- 
ther disputes this exposition; Semler and al. in- 
terpret ὀνειδίζειν : gualemcunque reprehensionem. 
But then James would utter an untenable senti- 
ment, because God notwithstanding those who 
ask, in various ways covers men with confusion. 
The expression also would be too brief in that 
sense; it is only intelligible if we take it with 
what goes before as one idea. But the exposition 
“to put those who ask to shame with a refusal” 
(Morus, Augusti and al.), is certainly unfounded ; 
although it is less far-fetched than that of Hu- 
ther; he who afterwards upbraids with his gifts 
is equally disposed to be hard beforehand and 
according to circumstances to send away the 
asker (without claims). ‘‘The side-look on the 
rich, v. 10; ch. v. 9,” also, which Huther and 
Wiesinger detect here, cannot be sustained be- 
cause it has first of all to be determined whom 
James means by the rich. The conception of a 
θεοῦ ὀνειδίζοντος would certainly agree with the 
religious views of said rich and then also indi- 
rectly with their behaviour. 

And it (wisdom) shall be given to him.— 
There is not sufficient reason for taking δοθήσεται 
(with Huther and Wiesinger) impersonally: it 
will be given to him. See Matth. vii. 7-11; Luke 
xi. 18; 1 Kings iii. 9-12. 

Ver. 6. But let him ask in faith.—James 
having objectively defined real prayer as the 
worship of the true God of revelation, now also 
defines it subjectively as prayer in faith. See 
ch. v. 15; Sir. vil. 10; Jno. xvi. 28. It certainly 
follows (according to Wiesinger) from the ap- 
pended negative definition that πίστις here desig- 
nates first of all undivided confiding, full and 
firm heart-trust. Such trust is only possible as 
a looking up to the God of free grace according 
to revelation; Huther therefore rejects without 
reason the exposition of Calvin: ‘fides est qux, 
dei promissionibus freta, nos impetrandi, quod peti- 
mus, certos reddit,” as one which lacks sufficient 
intimations; even the still closer definition of 
some of the older expositors, “πίστις ᾿Ιησοῦ Χρισ- 
τοῦ would seem to be included implicite. That 
is, while Wiesinger rightly observes that πίστις 
both with James and Paul denotes the mind’s 
moral attitude to God, yet with James this very 
attitude presupposes a looking up to ‘the giving 
God”’ according to revelation. Hence the μηδὲν 
διακρινόμενος excludes at once subjective wavering 
and doubting the certainties of evangelical salva- 
tion, because the attempt of fixing the heart out- 
side of the sphere of revelation (in the case of 
Christians outside of the name of Jesus) would be 
pure fanaticism. A similar conjoining of “faith 
and not doubting” also in an objective sense, oc- 
curs in Rom. iv. 20; ef. ch. xiv. 23; Matth. xxi. 
21; Mark xi. 24. James’ conception of faith as 
given here is consequently his full conception of 
faith; it is only in such an energy of praying 
and doing that faith is to him vital, but without 
it dead. AvaxpivecOar—being at discord with 
oneself, being divided in oneself, and hence 


| helpless disunion”’ 


doubting must be still further defined as in- 
ward false discriminating, judging and de- 
ciding, and in this root it is joined with false 
discriminating and judging, ch. ii. 5. The hard 
and austere mind on the one hand produces a 
hard and austere conception of God, and on the 
other a hard and austere deportment. Huther:. 
“While πίστις is ‘yes,’ and ἀπιστία ‘no,’ διακρί- 
νέεσθαι is the union of yes and no, yet so that the 
preponderance lies with ‘no.’” That is, where 
διακρίνεσθαι has become habitual, a governing 
trait of character; this is the force of the Parti- 
ciples. But Huther (after Calvin) also mentions 
the possibility of doubting alongside of honest, 
yet weak faith (see Note p. 48). 

Caution against wavering. vv. 6, 7. 

Ver. 6. For he that doubteth is like a 
wave of the sea.—’Eovxe occurs only here and 
γ. 24 in the New Testament. Huther sees in the 
γάρ of v.7 the repetition of the γάρ inv. 6. That 
is, he thinks that James gives only one reason, 
not two and that the figurative description of 
him that doubteth v. 6, is only intended to bring 
out a clearer exhibition of the fickle mental con- 
stitution of the doubter. But ‘this apparently 
assumes another form if 
we take v. 6 not only as acolouring but as a dec- 
laration that the doubter falls under foreign, anti- 
divine influences. The sea, according to the Old 
Testament, is the figure of the constrained (un- 
frei) life of nations, floating hither and thither in 
pathological sympathies (Ps. xlvi. 93; Dan. vii. 
3; Is. lvil. 20; Rev. xiii. 1). James was doubt- 
less conscious of this theocratic influence at a 
time, when ‘‘the waves of the sea” already be- 
gan to roar. The symbolical figure of the wind 
(Eph. iv. 14; ef. ch. ii. 2) however, must be put 
in the background, because it is only expressed 
in verbs. But even here we can hardly fail to 
recognize an allusion to a restless spiritual com- 
motion ((reistesleben) tossing the sea of nations, 
especially because ἀνεμίζεσθαι is an ἅπαξ λεγ., not 
found elsewhere (in classical Greek we have 
ἀνεμοῦσθαι, to be moved by the wind), and 
ῥιπίζεσθαι also occurs only here in the New Tes- 
tament. On the different derivations of the 
word, see Huther, Note 2, p. 48; viz.: from 
ριπίς, a bellows or fan, or from ῥιπῇ, rush (of the 
wind) or storm. The latter derivation seems to 
lie nearest. These expressions are therefore not 
altogether synonymous (Huther). Bengel makes 
the former to denote motion from without and the 
latter motion from within. But both, the wind 
and the storm come from without; the inner ele- 
ment is here expressed by the sea-nature of the 
wave. According to Theile, the former indicates 
the cause, the latter the effect. But the two de- 
note two different relations of degree: the sea in 
waves, the sea in billows; the breeze, the storm, 
the excitement of spirits, the rebellious commo- 
tion (vide bellum Jud.). From these considera- 
tions it seems to follow that the first yap has a 
more limited signification; it pronounces the 
διακρινόμενος incompetent to pray aright, because 
he is governed by the evil influences of the world. 
The second ydp, on the other hand, bears in a 
wider sense upon that man’s faithless relation to 
God. We cannot indeed conveniently render yap 
twice by for and repeat it therefore intensiter by 
‘also.’ Calvin makes it—ergo, Huther—namely, 


40 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


β ΞΘ aaa a ee aE ey eee aS ST Ne Le eee 


that is to say (niimlich), Pott, a particle of transi- 
tion. The lively figure is charged with propheti- 
co-symbolical matter. 

Ver. 7. Also let not that man think [or 
as I should prefer to render ‘Wor let that man 
think.” Μὴ γάρ as an elliptic phrase denotes 
-absolute denial and an Imper. or Optat. verb is 
then always supplied; here the context, on any 
interpretation that may be adopted, involves ab- 
solute denial and the nor has intensive force; 
the meaning is ‘let not that man by any means 
think” or ‘let that man by no means think.” — 
M.]. The second γάρ has particular reference 
to the doubter’s deficiency of faith in God, which 
is involved in his worldly dependence. Sure, he 
seeks to supply that deficiency of faith by super- 
stitious or fanatical delusions, but he deceives 
himself with these delusions. He must become 
conscious of the nothingness of these delusions 
before matters can mend with him. The severe 
handling of false praying is a very ancient cha- 
racteristic of exhortations to repentance accord- 
ing to Is. i. 15; Luke xviii. 11, this passage and 
the Reformation. 

That man, the one who doubts and has fallen 
into human weakness. [Alford sees in these 
words a certain slight expression of contempt.— 
M.]. 

That he shall receive any thing.—He re- 
ceives nothing; see ch. iv. 3 where another rea- 
son is specified why he does not receive any 
thing. [The reference is to the things for which 
he prays; there are many things, temporal 
blessings, which he does receive.—M. ]. 

From the Lord.—The reference is of course 
to God, as in vy. 12; ch. iv. 10, οἷο, but there is 
a reason for the use of κύριος instead of ϑεός; 
James means Jehovah, the living covenant-God, 
who has now fully revealed himself in Christ. 
For details, see Wiesinger. [Alford quotes Hof- 
mann, who remarks that where the Father is 
not expressly distinguished from the Son by the 
context, the Godhead in its unity is to be under- 
stood by ὁ ϑεός; and the same may be said of ὁ 
κύριος.----Ν.1. 

Ver. 8. A two-minded man.—The connec- 
tion of this sentence with that which precedes it, 
is variously explained. The expositions of Pott: 
‘<yxe homini inconstanti,” and of Baumgarten who 
wants to join δίψυχος with λήμψεται may be 
passed over. Winer, Wiesinger and Huther 
[also Wordsworth—M.] take it in apposition 
with the former verse and as explanatory of the 
figure v. 6, and render ‘“‘he, a two-minded man.” 
But the explanation of a figure and especially of 
one so thoroughly self-explanatory would not 
suit the style of our Epistle. Although the ne- 
cessity of the Article before ἀνήρ (Schnecken- 
burger), if the latter exposition is given, is un- 
founded, the exposition itself runs into a feeble 
tautology. Hence we agree with Luther and 
many expositors in taking ἀνὴρ δίψυχος as the 
subject and ἀκατάστατος as the predicate and 
the omission of the copula (is) as elevating the 
sententious weight of the proposition. Huther 
says that this would make the thought too abrupt. 
But in the masculine gender it is this formal 
abruptness which elevates the sentence, while in 
point of matter the connection is perfect. The 


doubter is delineated first as to how he stands to 
the world (a wave), then as to how he stands to 
God (avisionist, a man of conceits), and lastly as 
to how he stands to and by himself. And here 
it is noteworthy that James speaks of man in the 
masculine gender, probably not only on account 
of his proverbial character, but because the dan- 
gers against which James cautions his readers, 
are more especially dangers which threaten the 
Jewish male-world. The δίψυχος is not the same 
as the διακρινόμενος (so Luther and al.), Accord- 
ing to Huther this word ‘‘characterizes the in- 
ward being of the doubter.” To be sure, the 
inward being, not however as the ground of 
doubting (Huther, Kern, Wiesinger), but as the 
result of doubting. For two-mindedness is 
forthwith mentioned as the ground in relation to 
the manner how the doubter proceeds. Two- 
mindedness indeed lies already germ-like in 
doubt itself, but it is doubtfulness which devel- 
ops wavering and irresoluteness, wherein man 
has, as it were, two souls, the one touched by 
God, the other occupied by the world. He is 
false in both directions, false to God and false 
to the world by his double reservation, just as 
he is false to himself by the reservation of his 
egotism over against his piety and vice versa. 
But this makes him not forthwith a consummate 
liar and hypocrite; ‘‘he has not only, as it were, 
two souls in conflict with each other” (Huther), 
but as yet his enthusiasm glows psychically now 
for God and now for the world in two changing 
forms of the psychical life. The word δίψυχος 
is admirably formed after the analogy of di- 
yAwoooc and similar words; it appears to occur 
nowhere prior to this Epistle (see also ch. iv. 8), 
but besides the analogies just mentioned, it has 


4 
its type in the Hebrew 35) 955 (see also Jesus 


Sir. I, 28), and has been adopted by Clemens 
Rom. and other church authors (see Huther p. 
51). [Alford proposes to make the whole sen- 
tence predicate and all to apply to ὁ ἄνθρωπος 
ἐκεῖνος. On the whole, however, we give. the 
preference (with Wiesinger, Huther and Words- 
worth) to the certainly most grammatical con- 
struction of taking ἀνὴρ δίψυχος in opposition 
with v. 6; not as an explanation but as an ez- 
pansion of the figure in v. 6. This construction 
is by no means in conflict with the abrupt and 
predicative style of James, for the transition 
from the figure of the wave of the sea to the 
two-minded man is certainly bold, if not abrupt, 
there is indeed a transition from a physical to a 
psychical illustration; the word dipuyoc itself, 
used here for the first time in Greek literature, 
by its novelty would arrest attention and thus 
in the language of Lange, ‘elevate the senten- 
tious weight of the proposition.” —M. ]. 


An (excited) seditious disturber of peace. 
—The ordinary rendering ‘unstable’ [E. V.] or 
inconstant (Luther and al.) does justice neither to 
the original nor to the connection. For firstly, 
the expression is already half settled by what 
precedes it as well as by the words ‘‘in all his 
ways;” for although the latter phrase may bear 
a good sense, it seems to be used here in a bad 
sense (Sir. II, 18 ἐπιβαίνει ἐπὶ dbo τρίβους). Sec- 
ondly, the expression, as the representative of 


CHAP, I. 1-11. 


“YD (Is. liv. 11, LXX.), is too feeble in point of 


degree. And although, lastly, it may passively 
denote one driven about by the storm as well 
as actively a storming seditionary, ch. ili. 16 
(ἀκαταστασία) recommends here the use of the 
active signification. The wavering man, indeed, 
is exciting and seditious because he is ruffled and 
driven by the storm (of public excitement). The 
wave of the sea, related passively to the winds, 
strikes actively against ‘‘the rock.” 


Particular advice to the lowly [in station—M.] 
and particular advice to the rich. vy. 9, 10. 


Ver. 9. But let the brother, who is low, 
glory in his exaltation.—Aé indicates a con- 
trast of proper behaviour with what has just 
been described (Theile), [i. 6. with dupuyia—M. 
It directs the brother to turn the particular 
temptations to wavering into instruments of con- 
stancy. Commentators are divided with regard 
to ἀδελφός. De Wette and Wiesinger apply the 
term both to the more remote πλούσιος and to the 
nearer tamewdc. Then ταπεινός must not be 
taken spiritually according to Matth. xi. 29, but 
like πλούσιος with regard to outward circum- 
stances, while the exaltation in which the lowly 
is to glory, would denote his heavenly dignity. 
But Huther, representing the opposite view, re- 
marks that that exposition conflicts with the 
connection, which forbids such a distinction of 
Christians into poor and rich; that the reference 
is rather to the repacuoi; that a Christian, 
moreover, as a rich man would hardly have re- 
quired so urgent a reminder of the transitory 
nature of things temporal. But three things are 
here overlooked. 1. That the πειρασμοί affect 
the rich in a higher degree than they do the 
poor; 2. That the Apostle, as we have seen in 
the Introduction, treats both of Jewish Chris- 
tians (among whom were already rich men) and 
of Jews. Moreover he addresses, at the very 
beginning of the Epistle, the twelve tribes as his 
brethren. 8. The contrast between the poor and 
the rich had as yet not become prominent, but a 
contrast of those low in station [E. V. brethren of 
low degree—M.], and the rich. But that the 
low in station and the poor are, as brethren, 
nearer to James than the rich, becomes increas- 
ingly apparent as the Epistle runs on, especially 
inch. vy. Primarily, the lowly and the rich are 
described as brothers, for James indicates also 
to the rich a means of deliverance. There is 
still a third view, represented by Morus and 
Theile, which comprises both ideas: those who 
are outwardly poor and persecuted for right- 
eousness’ sake, Matth. v.19; 1 Pet. iii. 14. Hu- 
ther contests this union (p. 52), but afterwards 
reaches about the same conclusion. We have 
first to remember, that the brother of low station 
is not identical with the poor in ch. ii, Glancing 
at the characteristics of that time, we find that it 
designates the Jewish Christian and the Jew ab- 
solutely in their low, oppressed theocratic con- 
dition as contrasted with the heathen world and 
the seculiar power; and still more particularly 
the theocrat, inasmuch as he deeply feels this 
condition. He is to glory in the dignity of his 
heavenly and royally-glorious vocation, i. ὁ. to 
derive om it consolation and joy and to 


41 


strengthen himself with it. But the rich, 7. ¢. 
again the Jew and the Jewish Christian, inas- 
much as he sees the hopeless situation of the 
Jewish people ina very different and brilliant 
light, inasmuch as he is not only rich in the 
consciousness of his Jewish prerogatives, but 
also rich in the chiliastic and visionary expecta- 
tion of the Messianic or pseudo-Messianic resto- 
ration of his Jewish theocracy,—he is exhorted 
to glory in his humiliation, that is, to become 
reconciled with Christian or pious humility to 
all his theocratical humiliation, the full develop- 
ment of which in all its fearful magnitude is as 
yet impending (v. 11), in order that he may find 
in this Divine judgment turned into deliverance, 
the source of rejoicing and exaltation and of 
real glorying. 

And here a general explanation must suffice 
for our passing on to the general import of the 
double antithesis: the low-in-station and the 
rich; the poor and the rich. For we hold the 
opinion that, after the type of the Old Testa- 
ment and the Gospels, these expressions are 
throughout prophetico-symbolical, and that the 
common literal acceptation of this antithesis has 
unspeakably flattened the Epistle, weakened its 
purport and obscured its interpretation. Is it 
possible to suppose that in the time of James, in 
all the Jewish Christian congregations among 
all the twelve tribes the rich were in the habit 
of slighting the poor and that the unbelieving 
Jews were everywhere the rich? And that James 
was so reliably informed on that point, as to feel 
constrained to call all the twelve tribes to ac- 
count for it? Such conduct, I should think, could 
not be generally charged on the Jews proper. 
The rich among the Jews, as a rule have at all 
times exhibited much sympathy with and regard 
for their poor. And this very regard is supposed 
to have been wanting in such fearful generality 
in the Apostolic age, at a time where even in 
Gentile-Christian congregations collections were 
made for their Jewish Christian brethren! Nor 
was this the only point on which James felt 
bound to reprimand, but it is still further sup- 
posed that he had to denounce the sexton-rude- 
ness of assigning good seats to the rich and of 
allowing the poor either to stand or to sit on the 
bare floor, which rudeness had become prevalent 
throughout all the twelve tribes! If James, ‘‘the 
good, pious man” had only received a little more 
eredit [for capacity—M.], ὁ. 6. the Apostolical 
spirit united with prophetico-symbolical style, 
doubtless more would have been found in his 
Epistle. 

The brother must therefore be taken in a gene- 
ral sense, like v. 2. The low (in station) is the 
Jewish Christian or the Jew who as such (not 
primarily as a private individual) felt his theo- 
cratic humiliation; this intimates, of course, 
that he was the more humble just as a being 
pinched in private affairs might also further 
such consciousness; this is quite analogous to 
the Old Testament and the Gospels. (Ps. lxxiv. 
21; 1 Cor. i. 27). 

Glory.—The stronger rendering for Peter’s 
(1 Pet. i. 6) ἀγαλλειᾶσϑαι, analogous to Paul’s ex- 
pression in 2 Cor. xii. 9. A real glorying or a 
rendering prominent by glorying, inasmuch as 
such glorying is in contrast with egotistic self- 


42 


glorying; or also the condition of Divine grace 
and assistance. 

In his exaltation; ἐν denotes the object in 
which they shall glory, as a foundation of their 
well-being. It is the glory, given now already 
in the form and inwardly, which hereafter how- 
ever shall also be outwardly manifest (see 1 Pet. 
1), the process of its development being diametri- 
cally opposite to the rich man’s flower. Ὕψος 
is therefore not=steadfast courage (Augusti), or 
only future exaltation (de Wette), but—sublimi- 
tas gam presens, sed etiam adhuc futura (Theile, 
Huther). 

Ver. 10. But the rich in his humiliation. 
Here we must evidently repeat καυχάσθω. As 
to the irony contained in this clause (Thomas, 
Beza and al.), it is not much greater than that 
in the preceding sentence: let the lowly glory in 
his exaltation; for 1. such glorying emancipates 
from vain-glorying, 2. the rich also finds a source 
of comfort and praise in the full knowledge of 
his humiliation and its blessed import (see Matth. 
v. 3). 

Because as a flower of the grass.—An 
Old Testament figure applied to man in general, 
Job. xiv. 2; Ps. οἶδ, 15, to the ungodly with 
particular emphasis, Ps. xxxvii. 2 (Ps. xcii. 8). 
But here it is not to be explained with reference 
to the ungodly (so Huther), but as a historical 
figure with reference to the decay of the Old 
Testament glory, which in a surprising manner 
exhibits the realization of the law of the univer- 
sal decay of human glory, even as foretold by 
Is. xl. 6 ete. to which this passage doubtless has 
special reference. But in this decay there lay 
really concealed a consolation (just as in the 
universal decay of man), at which the thoughtful 
theocrat might well rejoice. The flower of the 
Old Testament glory was decaying, but the fruit- 
time of the Gospel of the New Testament had set 
in; ‘Comfort ye, comfort ye my people!” Hot- 
tinger has erroneously referred ἄνϑος to Is. xi. 
1, where the LXX render "5 by avioc. The 


words ‘flower of the field” (Is. xl. 6) are 
changed into “ flower of the grass” with reference 
to v. 7 ‘“‘the grass withereth and the flower 
wet So in the parallel-passage 1 Pet. i. 28, 
24,— 

The fate of the rich. y. 11. 

Ver. 11. For the sun rose (already).— 
This again is not only the colouring of the pre- 
ceding, but considering the reference to Is. xl. 
6 etc., this passage contains an application to 
Jewish history perfectly intelligible to an Israe- 
lite. What Isaiah had represented as having 
been done in the Spirit, was now fulfilled in 
reality; the old theocratic glory of Israel had 
passed away with the crucifixion of Christ. 
Hence the Aorists ἀνέτειλε ete., as symbolical 
expressions, must retain their literal force and 
neither be construed as used for the Present 
(Grotius and al.), nor as the mere representation 
of whatever repeats itself in one past fact (Hu- 
ther). This historical style serves, of course, 
the purpose furnishing us with a lively picture 
in the rapid succession of the separate stages of 
the process of decay (Winer). 

The sun with the burning heat (wind). 
—Grotius, Pott and al. distinguish ὁ καύσων, the 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


hot, burning wind which accompanies the rising 
sun (or the arid East wind, £59} which com- 


a 
ing from the desert of Arabia scorches the plains 
of Palestine) from the sun itself, referring to 
Ezek. xvii. 10; xix. 12; Hos. xiii. 15 ete. Hu- 
ther, however, applies the expression to the 
scorching heat of the sun and cites Is. xlix. 10, 
Matth. xx. 12; Luke xii. 55. But in Is. xlix. 10 
the heat of the sunis expressly distinguished 
from the sun, as a higher degree of the ordinary 
sunshine which oppresses Orientals, and the re- 
ference is to the relation of this incumbrance to 
men, 80 also in Matth. xx. 12, while in Luke xii. 
55 the sun is not mentioned at all. The suppo- 
sition that sunrise and the development of the 
sun’s heat are forthwith imperilling vegetation, 

“vould be almost too strong even to an Oriental 
imagination. - ΤῸ this must be added the presence 
of the Article before καύσων. But the view, that 
the sun with the development of its power fre- 
quently wakens the hot wind, as a kind of sup- 
plemental counterpart of its beneficent operation, 
is current in Holy Writ. So according to Mal. 
iv. the day of the Lord comes hot as a burning 
oven on all the proud, while the Sun of Righte- 
ousness rises with healing in His wings on all 
that fear the Lord. So Matth. xiii. 6, the scorch- 
ing heat is distinguished from the rising sun; in 
the interpretation of the parable γ. 21 it is called 
tribulation or persecution because of the word. 
Now, as we Occidentals make use of the well- 
known symbolical language, “the rising sun calls 
up vapor, fog, and thunder gusts,”’ so the Orien- 
tal is wont to say, ‘‘it wakens the hot wind.” 
Hence the application of this passage to Christ 
(Laurentius), was not far from its real meaning, 
but we do not press it; atall events the hot wind 
of the law, which scorched the glory of Israel, 
was developing with the sun of the finished reve- 
lation. And indirectly it was also the effect of 
the sun itself (““ ἃ stone of stumbling ete.’’). 


And the beauty of its appearance.— 
Huther connects the second αὐτοῦ not with τὸν 
χόρτον but with τὸ ἄνθος. But we cannot imagine 
that a fallen flower is still to lose its beauty; 
the flower is gone with the falling; the flower 
itself and not only its beauty. And thereby (by 
the falling of the flower) the grass or the plant 
itself lost all its beauty, the dress of its appear- 
ance, without, however, having wholly perished. 
And this was then precisely the case of Israel. 
Its flower had fallen away in the most significant 
manner; like grass, low on the ground, it con- 
tinued vegetating in its cumbersome existence. 
The word εὐπρέπεια occurs only here in the New 
Testament; πρόσωπον often denotes outward ap- 
pearance. Ps. civ. 80; Matth. xvi. 3 ete. 

Thus also shall the rich man, that is: 
the fate of the withered, stunted plant, or the 
general fate of the Jewish people will also be 
the fate of each individual Jew or Jewish Chris- 
tian if he persists in the conceit of his riches, or 
refuses to learn to glory in his humiliation. 
ovrwe—so quickly, so thoroughly.” Wiesinger. 
‘¢ Mapaivecbat, a ἅπαξ Aey: in the New Testament 


occurs in the LXX. as the translation of 2 
18 


Job xv. 80, in the same sense, Wisd. of Sol. ii. 8.” 
Huther. 


CHAP. I. 1-11. 


43 


In his journeyings.—Luther has ‘in his 
possession,” which rendering rests on the false 
reading πορία (---οεὐπορία, good way, favour of 
fortune, wealth). Herder, following Laurentius 
and Piscator, ‘“‘in his journeyings,” with refer- 
ence to ch. iv. 18. Huther, ‘‘in his ways” 
(--οὁδοῖς, v. 8; cf. Prov. ii. 8). Wiesinger, ‘‘in 
his walk,” with reference to de Wette, ‘‘in his 
luxurious enjoyment of 116. The word denotes 
in classical language 1, a going, a journey; 
2, walking along, course. In LXX, way, Nah. 
ii. 5; Jer. xviii. 15; Jon. iii. 3,4; but also a 
Journey, 2 Mace. iii. 8; cf. Luke xiii. 22. From 
these passages it is evident, that πορεία is not 
used as much as ὁδός in a metaphorical sense. 
We avoid therefore this expression and render: 
in his journeyings (of fortune). Huther: ‘The 
prominent idea is, that the rich man, overtaken 
by judgment, perishes in the midst of his doings 
and pursuits as the flower in the midst of its 
blossoming falleth a victim to the scorching heat 
of the sun.” 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. If the purely evangelical character of the 
Epistle of James has ever been impugned, its 
opening words may be referred to as furnishing 
proof that we are moving not on the ground of 
the Old Testament, but on that of the New. Joy 
as the burden of salutation is the watchword given 
to the first readers of the Epistle, who, however, 
were troubled by manifold temptations, Luke 
ii. 10. The beginning of the Epistle of James 
sounds like an echo of Christ’s first sermon 
at Nazareth, which the Author had probably 
heard, Luke iy. 18,19. This yaipecvamakes him 
homogeneous with Paul (Phil. iv. 4) and Peter 
(1 Pet. i. 6), the beginning of whose Epistle ex- 
hibits a remarkable agreement with the begin- 
ning of that of James. James, like Elihu, knows a 
God ‘who giveth songs in thenight.”” Job.xxxy. 10. 

2. The very beginning of the Epistle testifies of 
the truly Christian as well as of the morally ex- 
alted character of its Author. The demand ‘to 
count it all joy if one has fallen into manifold 
temptations,” has so lofty and bold a sound as to 
prompt the question whether such a demand is 
not beyond the reach of man’s ability. Cf. Heb. 
xii. 11. Such a demand must severely strike the 
natural man as a piece of consummate folly and 
scandalize him. For counting temptation all joy 
is infinitely more than to be silent in it and to 
pray, even more than to be grateful for it; it is 
not sufficient that we readily submit to tempta- 
tion, but we must glory in it that it is so and not 
otherwise, and this not only in isolated tempta- 
tions but in the many temptations which spring 
from the sufferings of earth. Cf. Rom. v. 3. 
Such a demand makes the Festuses exclaim 
‘James, thou art beside thyself.” Acts xxvi. 24. 
But the Christian, hearing this first word, feels 
and is conscious of the spirit of him who ad- 
dresses him in that word. For how could flesh 
and blood have been able to reveal what is here 
so clearly and explicitly put on record, viz. the 
Christian’s deepest grief at once the source of 
his highest joy? No other religion, beside the 
Christian, had raised the suffering of earth to a 
new ground of gratitude. Bacon’s saying is well 


known: ‘Prosperity is the blessing of the Old 
Testament, adversity that of the New.” Com- 
pare the treatise, still worth reading, of F. V. 
Reinhard, de prestantia religionis Christiane in 
consolandis miseris etc., and on the other hand the 
Diatribe de consolatione apud Grxcos, auctore A. 
C. van Heusde, Traj. ad Rhen. 1840. 

3. Since ye know.—In order to make a joy like 
that which he had just recommended to them 
possible to their πίστις, James now points to the 
fruit of their γνῶσις. Faith also had a science 
of its own, but a science, different in kind al- 
though not inferior in value and reliability to 
the knowledge whose province is purely natural. 
On the one hand even Christians are constrained to 
acknowledge ‘‘ we are but of yesterday and know 
nothing,” Job viii. 9, but on the other, the things 
which were hidden from the wise and prudent 
are revealed to them, Matth. xi. 25,26. And this 
science is fully competent to enable him to se- 
cure the joy here recommended; he knows from 
whom the temptation comes, he knows the pur- 
pose temptation serves, viz. the proof of faith. 
This view alone is calculated to reconcile him to 
the sufferings he has toendure. It is not chance 
if the Christian, more than many others, falls 
into manifold temptations, as little chance as if 
the smelter, in order to refine gold or silver, 
heats the furnace to a certain degree. Still less 
is it a just punishment but rather a means of pu- 
rification, improvement and education, without 
which it is impossible for us to attain any degree 
of greatness in the kingdom of God. Thus we 
have here also a confirmation of the words of 
Seneca: ‘‘ Opus est ad notitiam sui experimento. 
Quod quisque possit, nisi tentando haud didicit. 

4, Christian endurance is infinitely diverse 
from stoical indifference with its motto: ‘‘res 
mihi, non me rebus subjungere, conor.” It has a 
more sublime origin, a milder character, a greater 
duration, a more glorious fruit. 

5. It is remarkable that James insists in the 
very beginning of the Epistle upon Christian 
perfection, so that in v. 4 the same word is twice 
used. So also the perfect law, ch. i. 25, the 
perfect man, ch. iii. 2, ete. Cf. the beautiful 
essay of Ad. Monod in his Adieux, 1856: ““ Tout 
dans V Ecriture est idéal.” 

6. The exhortation in v. 4 contains the pro- 
found hint that where endurance has its perfect 
work, the Christian, as to principle, is perfect 
and in nothing deficient. For where Christian 
endurance holds sway, there the power of sinful 
selfishness is broken, of selfishness which per- 
chance would love to take a position either inde- 
pendent of God or higher than God, but in no 
event under God. For the heroism of faith is 
evinced in two ways, it is suffering or militant. 
The former is higher than the latter, because it 
demands the greatest self-denial, and he who 
really attains to it, by so doing carries also 
within himself the principle of Christian perfec- 
tion. 

7. The short Epistle of James treats relatively 
much of prayer, see ch. i. 5; iv. 2,3, ὃ; τ. 19-- 
18. Herein also the Apostle appears as the true 
servant of Him who not only did conduct His 
disciples to the school of prayer, but was to them 
in this respect also a pure and perfect pattern, 
Luke xi. 1. The manner in which James speaks 


44 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


of prayer shows clearly that he recognizes a 
direct connection between prayer and its answer, 
not only in the sense of modern unbelief that 
prayer can only psychologically exert a bene- 
ficial influence on the heart of the person pray- 
ing, but also that prayer is the Divinely ap- 
pointed means for the direct obtaining of our 
wants, which also without such prayer we should 
certainly not receive. If prayer were only psy- 
chologically operative on the person praying, it 
would be altogether inexplicable why James also 
80 earnestly and emphatically enjoins prayer for 
others (intercession, ch. συ, 13-18), as in the 
former case prayer could not possibly be of any 
use to them. Cf. this commentary on 1 Tim. ii. 
1-7. 

8. The Christian never needs more wisdom 
than. when in temptation everything depends 
upon his enduring it in the right manner and 
according to the willof God. We often speak 
of the wisdom which men need in prosperity lest 
they become ungrateful, haughty or arrogant 
and this assertion is correct. But in adversity 
also we need the Divine light not less if we 
would truly understand the lesson God is teach- 
ing us thereby and not be driven by our own 
excited feelings into lamentable error. This was 
duly understood and appreciated by the sacred 
bard, Ps. xciv. 12. There never was a sinner 
converted by the highly praised benefit of tribu- 
lation alone, as long as the Lord Himself did not 
render the wholesome chastisement efficacious 
with the rod of His Word and the light of His 
Spirit. In the day of tribulation we probably 
need Divine wisdom even more than in the days 
of joy; wisdom in order that we really choose 
the true way without turning to the right or to 
the left; wisdom, in order that we may under- 
stand what God wants us to do when He denies 
us the realization of some cherished desire, or 
when He lays on us a heavy burden, ete. 

9. What James says of the indispensable ne- 
cessity of faith in prayer, is also taken from our 
Lord’s own teaching, Matth. xxi. 21, 22. His 
charming figure of the waves of the sea origin- 
ated probably in his own recollection of the lake 
of Gennesareth. The striking truth of this figure 
is best understood, if we apply it to our inward 
experience of life. The soul is like the sea, but 
doubt blows over it like a tempest which upheaves 
the waters from their lowest depth; in such a 
condition, the heart of the δέψυχος is not suscep- 
tible of the enjoyment of answer to prayer. Cf. 
1 Kings xviii. 21, where the expression ‘to halt 
between two opinions” [German: ‘to halt on 
both sides.”"—M.], indicates a similar inward 
breach, with a probable allusion to a bird limp- 
ing from twig to twig without finding rest any- 
where. 

10. James seems to present us with a new 
paradox in the exhortation (v. 9) ‘Let the 
brother, who is low, glory in his exaltation.”’ There 
is however an exaltation seen by God and the 
Lord, which does not depend upon earthly 
honour and perishable riches and is mostly to be 
found where superficiality would last and least 
look for it. Tobe humiliated can only be irrita- 
ting and disagreeable to flesh and blood; but if 
it happens for the sake of Christ’s name, if the 
humiliation is borne with the eye turned to Christ 


and united to Christian nobility of soul, then it 
is not counted a disgrace, but borne as the highest 
honour. Cf. Matth. y. 11, 12; Acts υ. 41, 42. 
Here we are involuntary reminded of Pascal’s 
beautiful saying concerning man: ‘Gloire et 
rebut de Vunivers, s'il se vante, je Vabaisse; s'il 
s’abaisse, je le vante.” 

11. The number of the rich who were able to 
glory in their humiliation has always been small. 
Cf. Matth. xix. 23-26. Still history here and 
there shows us individuals in the fire of the 
fiercest assault and temptation. Hear only 6. g. 
the splendid language of Chrysostom in his 
speech after the fall of Eutropius, Opera, vol. 3, 
p. 586, ed. Montf. ‘*Why did we not tremble? 
Because we do not fear any of the adversities of 
this life. What could inspire us with terror? 
Death? We run so much the sooner into the 
haven of repose. The loss of earthly riches? 
Naked I came out of my mother’s womb and 
naked I shall return into the mother-womb of 
the earth. Exile? The earth is the Lord’s and 
what therein is. False accusations? Rejoice 
and be exceeding glad when men shall say all 
manner of evil against you falsely, for great shall 
be your reward in heaven. I saw the swords 
above me and looked up to heayen. I expected 
death and thought of the resurrection. I looked 
at earthly adversities and counted up the bless- 
ings at the right hand of God. I looked upon 
the perils and my eye beheld in spirit the crown 
of glory. What I am constantly preaching in my 
sermons, was constantly preached by the deed in 
the market-place. The wind blows and scatters 
the leaves, the grass withers and the flower 
fades.” (The last sentence probably contains 
an indirect, allusion to James i. 11.) 

12. The crown of life, of which James here 
speaks, presents not only a contrast to the 
perishable laurel-crowns for which the Greeks 
contended in the games, but also to that fading 
flower to which James referred in the preceding 
verse (v.11). In the doctrine of the reward of 
grace accorded to persevering faith, James is in 
prefect agreement with our Lord and His other 
Apostles. Cf. Matth. xix. 28; 1 Cor. ix. 24-27; 
1 Pet. v. 4; Rey. ii. 10; iii, 21. His mentioning 
the crown of life which is ready for all who love 
the Lord, affords a not indistinct view of ‘‘the 
election of grace.” 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


V. 2-8. Epistle for 3d Sund. in Lent, vy. 9-12 
Epistle for 22d Sund. after Trinity in the Grand 
Duchy of Hesse and elsewhere. [V. 1-12 Epistle 
for St. Philip and St. James’s Day in the Church 
of England and the Prot. Epis. Church in the U. 
8.—M.]. 

ow the vocation of being servants of Jesus 
Christ was especially committed to the authors 
of the New Testament and how it still is the 
prerogative of all believers.—The servant of Jesus 
Christ can do nothing better than to strengthen 
his brethren.—In Christ is joy for all people.— 
How Christianity renders possible what seems to 
be impossible.—The sufferings of this time the 
Christian’s proof of faith. It is this very fire- 
proof [noun, to give the full force of German 
‘*Feuerprobe”’] which establishes 1, the genuine- 


CHAP. I. 1-11. 


45 


ness 2, the standard and 3, the intrinsic value 
of this gold of faith. Cf. 1 Pet. i. 7.—Endurance 
under all temptations the daughter of faith, the 
mother of all other virtues.—The Christian life 
a God-consecrated sacrifice which must be with- 
out spot or blemish. ‘Ask, what I shall give 
thee,” 1 Kings iii. 5.—The difference between 
Divine and human benevolence, ef. Sir. xviii. 18. 
The great value of believing prayer and its indis- 
pensable necessity in times of great temptation. 
The curse of wavering; the value of Christian 
decision of character. — Riches and _ poverty 
viewed in the light of faith. Abasement the way 
to exaltation, want the way to enjoyment, fight- 
ing the way to the crown.—The beatitude of the 
servant of Christ (v. 12) compared with the 
beatitudes of the Master, Matth. νυ. 3-12. 

On the whole section vy. 1-12.—The Christian’s 
threefold duty in temptation: 1. Suffering (vy. 2- 
4), a. with grateful joy; ὁ. with enduring pa- 
tience; 2. Prayer (v. 5-8), a. for a precious 
gift at the hands of a magnanimous giver; ὃ. in 
simple faith without any doubt; 3. Glorying (v. 
9-12), a. in the present conflict; ὁ. in the expec- 
tation of the future crown. 

THoLtuck (Sermons I. 5, 340) on v. 2. “Why 
the Christian counts his temptation all joy.” 1. 
He knows whence it comes; 2. He knows whither 
it leads. 

Sraac:—The Christian’s behaviour in crosses 
and temptations: 1. The bliss of the cross; 2. 
the prayer of the cross; 3. the disposition of the 
cross; 4. the promise of the cross. 

Beck: (v. 5)—The true wisdom. 

Kuumm:—The prize in the arena of life. 

DrasEKE :—Humility the condition of all true 
moral greatness, for it is, 1. its beginning, 2. its 
food, 8. its support and 4. its crown. 

ArnptT: —Happy is the man who endures 
temptation. 

PoruspszKy: (vv. 1-4).—The temptations of 
faith: 1. How they are occasioned. 2. How 
they effect endurance. 3. How they excite be- 
lieving activity.—(v. 5). Prayer the first act of 
faith.—(vy. 6-8). The doubter’s torment and de- 
liverance.—(vv. 9-12). Through abasement to 
exaltation. I. The end: exaltation, 2. the 
means: abasement. 

SrarKE:—To be the servant of God is to a be- 
liever a precious title of honour, in which he may 
always glory. 

Cramer:—The Church of the New Testament 
is not confined to one locality as in the time of 
the Old Testament, ‘‘but in every nation he that 
feareth Him and worketh righteousness, is ac- 
cepted with Him” Acts x. 35. 

QuESNEL:—One of, the chief cares of consci- 
entious teachers is to comfort those who suffer 
for the Lord’s sake, 1 Cor. xiv. 3. 

Hepincer:—Great art! To laugh in weep- 
ing, to be glad in sadness. But there is still 
time to learn it; our strength is nothing, it is al- 
together God’s work and doing, Phil. iv. 11-13. 

Cramer: —Different medicines are required 
for different maladies, different chastisements 
for different sins, Tit. iii. 3. 

SrarKe:—Sincere faith is not dead but alive 
and works all manner of good, 2 Pet. i. 5, 6.— 
Crosses and suffering promote patience just as 
the wind strengthens the roots of the tree, v. 2. 


—He that has begun well must persevere unto 
the end or all former labour is lost.—Patience 
in the first hour is not sufficient. The end brings 
the crown.—It is great wisdom to bear suffering 
aright, and that wisdom is of God’s supplying. 

HeEpINGER:—A rich man who is charitable is a 
rare spectacle; to be giving and never tire of 
beggars is more than human; but to give above 
all that we can ask is Divine (Eph. iii. 20). 

OsIANDER:—Because God does not angrily up- 
braid us with His benefits, therefore we should 
still less reproach our neighbour with the good we 
show him. 

Lanai Op.:—The highest honour which a crea- 
ture can confer upon God is to trust Him in every 
thing by faith and to rely in the full assurance 
upon His promises, which is also the purest wor- 
ship, Rom. iv. 20, 21. 

QuEsNEL:—Faith is the fountain of Christian 
prayer; the stream does not flow, if the fountain 
is dried up, Rom. x. 14.—True believers are not 
fickle and changeable, but constant and stead- 
fast, Col. ii. 5.—Would you serve God, then let it 
be your serious endeavour not to tempt God.—A 
divided heart longs not for God, Matth. xxii. 37. 
—A poor believer is as much a brother in Christ 
as a rich, Philemon vy. 16.—Humility and abase- 
ment have been made by Christ true exaltation, 
Job. xxii. 29. 

HrpincGeR:—Riches are not culpable in them- 
selves, but they may easily make men haughty. 

CramMeR:—God willeth that the rich and the 
poor should dwell together. 

Laneit Op.:—The transitoriness of life and 
instability of outward prosperity are to be well 
considered. 

HepinacER:—Rich and ungodly—a double hell- 
rope. Take care that avarice put it not round 
your neck, 1 Tim. vi. 9, 10. 

Lane Op.:—Believing Christians are not only 
the subjects but the sharers of Christ’s reign, as 
those who rule and govern with Him, 1 Cor. vi. 
2, 3. 

CRAMER:—What is marred by the crown of 
thorns, which we have to wear here on earth, 
will be amply compensated by the crown of life 
in heaven, 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18. 

Srrer:—In order to do justice to the deep, 
rich meaning of every word and sentence of this 
Epistle, we have ever to begin with the beginning 
without ever exhausting its fulness. What a 
sermon might be preached on the single joy 
(χαίρειν) which sounds into our tribulation.— 
What a lofty saying is the verse connected with 
it—‘Count it all joy if you fall into manifold 
temptations,” ete. 

Heusner :—Proofs (trials) a Divine blessing. 
—To have a good beginning and to omit the 
prosecution is disgraceful.—Wisdom, that is not 
from God, is no wisdom.—Faith and prayer are 
mutual conditions.—Where the will is still wa- 
vering, there is no trust.—1 Sam. ii. 30 holds 
good of belief and unbelief.—Christianity exalts 
a Christian above his station.—It is a touching 
spectacle, that commands respect, to see a Chris- 
tian, whose position in the world is commanding, 
clothed with humility. 

fv. 1. It is the duty of the Church to send 
greetings of joy to the dispersed children of God 
and to use every means for turning the wilder- 


46 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


ness of the dispersion into the garden of the 
Lord. (Missionary Sermon)—y. 2. The true 
Christian sees in temptation of every kind and 
of every degree cause for unmingled joy. Cf. 
Rom. νυ. 3; 2 Tim. ii. 12.—y. 3. The Christian 
in the furnace: 1. Experiencing the heat of 
temptation, 2. Rejoicing in the watchful care of 
his superintending Master, 38. Jubilant at the 
result of the fiery process. Mal. iii. 8; 1 Pet. 
i. 7.—vv. 4, 5. γοῶσις may be acquired in the 
schools, σοφία is the gift of God. Cf. Lactantius, 
‘on true and false wisdom.”’—True wisdom the 
gift of God to prayerful believers. —The charac- 
teristic of true wisdom—it makes wise unto sal- 
vation.—y. 6. The doubter like a wave. a, in 
his conduct—driven hither and thither, by con- 
trary winds or lashed into a billow by the terh- 
pest; ὁ, in his end—touching the shores of safety 
but dissolving into spray and returning to the 
treacherous sea.—yv. 7. Instability the character~ 
istic of schism.—yv. 8. The mountain is reached 
from the valley.—y. 9. The riches of wealth—the 
riches of learning—the riches of station—the 
riches of earthly honour no grounds for glorying. 
—True riches are riches toward God.—vv. 10, 
11. The fate of earthly greatness symbolized in 
the fate of the flower. v. 12. Earthly afflictions 
and trials destined to become amaranths in the 
crown of life.—On the whole section James i. 1-- 
12 compare John xiv. |-14.—M.]. 

[ΒΡ. ΟΟΝΥΒΕΑΒΕ: v. 4.—Our very joys are 
broken and interrupted, and our distresses are 
so frequent and sharp, that we scarce know how 
to support ourselves under them: and yet borne 
that must be which cannot be avoided by us: 
The will of God must be submitted to by His 
creatures, both in the ordinary dispensations of 
Providence and in the more eminent exercise of 
its powers. Patience will then come in as a ne- 
cessary duty in common life. We need it almost 
every day on some occasion or other; and there- 
fore should arm ourselves with such principles 
as may enable us to go through with innocence. 
—M. }. 

that ye may be perfect and entire. Probable 
allusion to the sacrificial victims which must be 
without blemish. The sacrifice of body, soul and 


EE -οςς-ς-ς-ςς-.-Ἐἐ- - - Ἐ-ς-ς--- - - -------’ς-.-.-ς-ςςς----- 


spirit with all we have and hold, as a reasonable 
service rendered unto God by His faithful ser- 
vants.—M. ]. 

{v. 5. Dr. Jortin:—The wisdom of resisting 
any sort of temptation may very well be extended 
so as to mean pious wisdom in general, or a 
practical knowledge of our duty and true in- 
terest, by which we shall overcome every thing 
that opposes and endangers our salvation.—M. ]. 

[Bepr:—This text contains a warning against 
the erroneous notion of Pelagianism, that men 
may obtain wisdom by their own free will, with- 
out Divine grace. Cf. v. 16, 17.—M.]. 

[ WorpswortH : —The description of the Divine 
bounty is like a summary of our Lord’s words, 
exhorting to prayer. Matth. vii. 7-12.—M.]. 

[Br. AnpREwEs:—This text presents the 
strongest motives to genuine liberality. See 
Wordsworth.—M. ]. 

[v. 6. ΒΡ. Sanperson:—A large and liberal 
promise; but yet a promise most certain and full 
of comfortable assurance, provided it be under- 
stood aright, viz., with these two necessary limi- 
tations: if God shall see it expedient, and if man 
pray for it as he ought To make all 
sure then here is our course. Wrestle with God 
by your fervent prayers: and wrestle with Him 
too by your faithful endeavours; and He will not 
for His goodness’ sake, and for His promise’,sake 
He cannot, dismiss you without a blessing. But 
omit either, and the other is lost labour. Prayer 
without study is presumption, and study without 
prayer is Atheism. y. 8. Hermas says of the 
double-minded man: ‘‘Cast away from thyself 
double-mindedness; be not anywise two-minded 
in asking of God; say not, how can I ask of God 
and obtain it, when I have sinned so much against 
Him? Nay, but rather turn with thy whole heart 
to the Lord and ask of Him without hesitation 
and thou shalt feel the abundance of His mercy, 
for He is not like men, who remember injuries; but 
if thou doubtest in thy heart, thou wilt receive 
nothing from Him, for they who doubt concern- 
ing God, are the double-minded men and receive 
none of their requests.’””’ Hermas, Pastor, Man- 
dat. 9, p. 596 ed. Dressel. See also Wordsworth 
and Whitby, who produce other passages.—M. ]. 


II. THE THEME. 


THE BEATITUDE OF ENDURANCE IN TEMPTATION AS A WARNING AGAINST YIELDING 
TO IT. 


Cuarter I. 12. 


12 


Blessed is the man’ that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive 


the crown of life, which the Lord? hath promised to them that love him.* 


Verse 12. 1 The reading dv @pw mos in Cod. A. and several minuscule Mas., being a false correction, calls attention 


to the significant av ἡ p. 


ὸ κύριος is wanting in A. B. Cod. Sin., and rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, (Alford—M.) and al. 
Theile retains it with G. Καὶ. (C. without the Article) and al. the Syriac, [Armenian—M.] and other ver- 
sions. Several minuscule Mss. and versions [Vulg. Syr. Copt. Aeth. and al.—M.], read ὁ θεός. As the 
insertion is more readily accounted for than the omission, we may presume that the Apostle in A ἡ μ- 


Weracreverts ἰὸ λήμψεταί τι παρὰ τοῦ κνρίου [ν. ἴ--Μ.} 


generally a summary mode of expression. 
8 Lange: Blessed (is) the man .... for when he has become approved... . 


But summary sentences have 
We follow therefore Bouman. p. 63. 


CHAP. 


es 47 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


That this verse contains the proper theme of 
the whole Epistle and indicates the dominant 
fundamental idea of the same follows from the 
twofold consideration that 1. the same thought 
comes up already in the Introduction v. 2 and 2. 
that it is repeated in a corresponding final theme 
at ch. vy. 7. It isa beatitude after the manner 
of the sermon on the mount and moreover the 
last of these beatitudes of our Lord, in which all 
the preceding ones blend (Matth. vy. 10, 11), 
appropriately adapted to the situation of the 
readers in the time of James. 

Blessed (is) the man.—drfp instead of av- 
ϑρωπος not only with reference to Ps. i. 1, for it 
occurs repeatedly (see vy. 5, here, v. 20 and ch. 
iii. 2) and we have already intimated that it may 
be accounted for by the temptations of the time, 
which James had in view, making the round 
especially among Jewish men. Thomas appears 
to have noticed, but not to have understood this 
characteristic, as would seem from his comment: 
“‘beatus vir, non mollis vel effeeminatus, sed vir.” 

W ho endureth temptation.—[ Bengel reads 
with K. L. ὑπομενεῖ, Future; but ὑπομένει is the 
ordinary reading and, the blessing being abso- 
lute, the tense is immaterial.—M.]. Although 
the proposition is valid and will be valid as a 
general dogma, the πειρασμός here does not 
primarily denote the concrete unity of all the 
πειρασμοί mentioned in y. 2, for the reference to 
these very πειρασμοί runs through the whole 
Epistle. Therefore not: ὅταν περιπέσῃ (Wiesin- 
ger). Hence ὑπομένει like ὑπομονῇ in vy. 3 and 
μακροϑυμήσατε ch. v. 7, ete. 

Because when he has become approved. 
One who has become approved, not only proved: 
one who has become approved by the fact of 
proof. [He has stood the test of the δοκίμιον 
v. 2 and thereby has become déxuoc—M.]. The 
idea is identical with that expressed in ch. ii. 
23: Abraham has become the friend of God by 
δικαιοῦσϑαι. And here we see how James and 
Paul agree in their dogmatical views, for Paul 
also mentions the δοκιμῇ as the consequent of 
ὑπομονῇ Rom. y. 8. But the subjective and inner 
side of this proof is σφραγίζεσϑαι according to 
Eph. i. 18. Krebs, Augusti and al., have found 
here an allusion to the trial preceding the con- 
test of the athletes;but such an allusion is out 
of place, so is that of Gebser, Theile and al., to 
the refining of metals by fire, for that figure pre- 
supposes the idea of refining, which although 
involved in the trial or proof, is not identical 
with it. The same situation presupposes the 
certainty of success in refining, questions it in 
the trial and endangers it in temptation. De 
Wette and Wiesinger reject a figurative reference; 
but the crown of life, which is here promised, 
at least reminds us of the idea of the race-course 
also in Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 24; 2 Tim. ii. 5. 

He shall receive the crown of life; oré- 
φανος, garland, chaplet of victory or honour in 
its fullest significance denotes a crown and in 
this sense we are warranted to take it here, ac- 
cording to Matth. v. 9 and Rey. v. 10.—Tie ζωῆς 
is explained by Huther as the Genitive of appo- 
sition: ‘‘The ζωΐ i. 6. eternal, blissful life is the 


crown of honour wherewith he that endures is 
adorned.” But Jno. iii. 36 says: ‘he that be- 
lieveth hath everlasting life’; does ‘‘the crown 
of righteousness” 2 Tim. iv. 8 signify ‘‘right- 
eousness is given me as a crown?” If the crown 
denotes the crown of honour of the finished proof, 
matured in the life of faith but also objectively 
awarded and glorified by God, it is the crown of 
life, 7. 6. the crown granted to a life which has 
developed itself into coronation, as life, the Sum- 
mum of life as life’s prize of honour; our Geni- 
tive is consequently the Genitive of possession 
or dependence. Cf. 1 Pet. v. 4, Rev. ii. 10. If 
the legal men [7. 6. sticklers for the Jewish Law. 
M.] of that time were perhaps wont to say with 
reference to Ps. i.: Blessed is the man that ever 
keeps to the law, he is the tree by the rivers of 
water, his leaves do not fade ἡ, ὁ. his life shall 
retain perpetual freshness, the beatitude of 
James expressing his continuance and promise 
of life would receive a peculiar significance. 
Although we cannot assert with Zwingli, Mi- 
chaelis, Wiesinger and al., that the foundation 
of this figure is as in 1 Cor. ix. the idea of the 
Grecian games, it may be shown that the Jews also 
regarded the crown or diadem not only as ‘a 
symbol of peculiar honour”? (Huther referring 
to Ps. xxi. 4; Wisd. of Sol. v. 16, 17), but also 
of an honour accorded by God toa well-endured 
warfare of life. Both the Jews and the Greeks 
started with the presumption that persevering 
wrestling in a higher course of life constituted 
the condition of the diadem and that presumption 
repeats itself more or less among all mankind in 
the most diversified forms. This law of life was 
recognized in the Old Testament especially in 
the case of the typical Judah, of David, of the 
ideal man (Ps. viii.), and of the Messiah (Ps. ex.). 
The crown of believers is contrasted with the 
perishable garland of honour in 1 Cor. ix. 25 and 
it is also alluded to in 1 Pet. 1. 4: v.4. Why isthe 
antithesis here wanting? The Jews and the 
Jewish Christians of that time might readily 
remember it; all their visionists wanted to see 
the day of the kingdom of Zion, of the coronation 
of their chiliastic Messiah, the crowning of the 
Jewish rulers of the world. On this account 
Peter also points the suffering Christian pastors 
to the crown of glory (1 Pet. v.) and the promise 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews also is the king- 
dom which cannot be moved (Heb. xii. 28).— 

Which He (the Lord) has promised.—See 
Critical Note. ‘If 6 κύριος is the right reading, 
it signifies not Christ (Baumgarten, Schnecken- 
burger), but God (Gebser, Theile, Wiesinger 
[and Alford—M.].” Huther.—But that means 
nevertheless: God revealed in Christ. But might 
not James by this very omission have designed 
a supplying which he had prepared in v. 1?— 

To them that love Him.—Ch. ii. 5; Ps. xevii. 
10; cxlv. 20; Rom. viii. 28; 2 Tim. iv. 8. The 
love of the Lord, with James and Paul is conse- 
quently the real and eternal nature of faith, its 
root, its sap and its crown; and it is love which 
proves itself in endurance and by it attains to 
completion. Cf. Jno. xv. [Amor parit patien- 
tiam. Bengel.—M. ]. 

[In Shemoth Rabba, sect. 31, p. 129 and in 
Rab. Tanchum p. 29, 4, we read: ‘Blessed is the 
man, who stands in his temptation; for there is 


48 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


no man whom God does not try. He tries the 
rich, to see if they will open their hands to the 
poor: He tries the poor, to see if they will re- 
ceive affliction and not murmur. If, therefore, 
the rich stand in his temptation, and give alms to 
the poor, he shall enjoy his riches in this world, 
and his horn shall be exalted in the world to 


come; and the holy blessed God shall deliver 
him from the punishment of hell. If the poor 
stand in his temptation, and do not repine, he shall 
have double in the world to come.’’—M. }. 

For ‘‘pocTRINAL AND ETHICAL” and ‘‘HOMI- 
LETICAL AND PRACTICAL” see the preceding sec- 
tion. 


Ill. FIRST ADMONITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE FIRST FORM 
OF TEMPTATION: VISIONARINESS. 


CAUTION AGAINST THE VISIONARINESS WHICH REPRESENTS THE TEMPTATION AS 
GOD’S CAUSE. THE HIDEOUS FORM OF THE SELF-TEMPTATION OF THE ERRING 
AND THEIR END, DEATH.—THE OPPOSING IMMUTABILITY OF THE FATHER OF 
LIGHTS IN HIS BLESSING RULE AND THE EXALTATION OF HIS PRINCELY CHIL- 
DREN BORN BY THE WORD OF TRUTH. 


Cuapter [. 18-18. 


(VV. 16-21. Epistle for Fourth Sunday after Easter.) 


13 
14 
15 
16 
17 


18 


Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God:! for God cannot be 
tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when 
he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it 
bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, 
my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and 
cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is? no variableness, neither sha- 
dow of turning.’ Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should 
be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. 


Verse 13. 1 Only several minuscules sustain the reading rod θεοῦ. [τοῦ is omitted by A. B.C. K. L.—M.] Cod. 
Sin. reads ὑπὸ θεοῦ, but in v.17 erroneously ἀποσκίασματος. Lange: “No one, who is 
tempted [stands in temptation] shall’say: Iam tempted from God, for God is not temptable in respect 
of evil things, but He Himself tempteth [out of Himself] no one, 

[Let no man, being tempted, say that (ore recitantis) lam being tempted from God; for God is not expe- 
rienced in respect of evil things, but He Himself tempteth no man.—M.} 

Verse 14. Lange: . . . tempted in that he is drawn away [rendered an apostate] by his own lust and allured [by 
his evil inclination.) 


[. . being drawn away and lured by his own concupiscence.—M]., 
Verse 15. Lange: . . . conceived [is impregnated] - , but sin, when it is completed [has ripened] bringeth 
forth death. 
Verse 16. Lange: M. Be not ye deceived, my beloved brethren. 


Verse 17. 2(Cod. Sin. ἔστιν for €vu—M.] 
8 eeu. Sin. ἀποσκίασματος.--Μ.1 
Every good giving and every perfect gift [donation] cometh [and cometh] down from above, from the Fa- 
ther of the lights [beings of light], with whom there is not existing a change, nor a shadow-casting of a 
turning. 
᾿ [Every a bestowing and . . coming down from . . 
change or shadow of turning.—M.] 
Verse 18. Lange: Pursuant to free decree hath He begotten us by the word. [of Hisown Will [because He willed it, 
Alford; by the act of His own will, Wordsworth.] etc.—M.]. 


. with whom there is [essentially] not a 


Ver. 13. Let no one whois tempted say. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Anatysis:—The first form of temptation— 
visionariness. The representation of the tempt- 
ing thought as of God’s cause and caution against 
the deceptiveness of this temptation, v. 18.—The 
hideous form of the self-temptation of the erring 
and their end,—death, vy. 14-16.—The opposing 
image of the true God in His blessing rule and 
His fixed immutability, v. 17.—The exaltation of 
His princely children begotten by the word of 
truth, v. 18. 

The first form of the temptation—fanaticism, rep- 
resented as a glorious cause of God, or a Divine ad- 
monition. 


—Caution against the deceptiveness of the temp- 
tation. It is incorrect to affirm that James op- 
poses ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν to ὃς πειράζεται, ete.; 
something like Huther, Pott, Olshausen, Schneck- 
enburger and al. For how could any one abide 
the temptation, without haying first been tempted? 
James in this dehortation refers indeed to those 
who really say that they are tempted from God 
(which is also indicated by the forcible participial 
form) but even these he desires to reclaim while 
warning his better readers against their error. 
According to Calvin (and Wiesinger) James here 
treats de alio tentationis genere. But the matter is 
simply this; James now explains the one great 
πειρασμός according to the separate ποικίλοις πει- 


CHAP. I. 13-18. 


49 


eeoeoeoeoeoeoeoeaeseseseoeoeoeoseseseasesesasosoN ΦΤΨΤἙἝἙΘ 


ρασμοῖς and begins with the first form of the 
temptation.—[The force of the Participle should 
be brought out in the translation.—M. ]. 

Shall Say,—/eyérw according to Schnecken- 
burger and al.—cogitet or sibi persuadeat, which 
is of course implied but not all, as Huther justly 
observes, [Bengel: corde aut ore—M.]. James 
connects this saying with the uncommonly much- 
saying of the Judaizing Jewish Christians and 
Jews, to which he alludes. 

Iam tempted from God.—Grotius, Hottin- 
ger and al. have rightly felt that the word 
‘tempt’ bears a somewhat different sense in the 
two places, while Huther asserts without suffi- 
cient reason that the sense in both cases must be 
identical, viz.: to be inwardly solicited to sin. 
Let no one say: I am inwardly solicited to sin of 
God; but with such an exhortation James could 
not possibly have warned the twelve tribes. Said 
expositors miss however the correct distinction 
by saying that in the one instance it denotes: 
adversa pati, and in the other malis ad defectionem 
sollicitart. It is a sententious oxymoron convey- 
ing the idea: Let no one say that the impulse, 
which to him is really a temptation, and in the 
end a devilish one (ch. iii. 15), in which he is al- 
ready entangled (πειραζόμενος), is a monition of 
God, a cause of God, an incentive to maintain 
His honour. For this the Jews at a somewhat 
later period did really say in their uprising 
against the Romans, this they said even then in 
their fanatical utterings against the pagans, and 
the Judaizing Jewish Christians said in a similar 
manner: It is the will of God that we maintain 
His law and therefore separate from the Gentile 
Christians, as far as they do not receive the whole 
law or only in part. But James doubtless chose 
this poignant mode of expression in order to 
reproach those sayers with their making, 
though unconsciously, God the Author of evil. 
But it cannot be absolutely assumed that he is 
here inveighing against an impertinence gener- 
ally or variously current among Jewish Chris- 
tians, which made them charge God with tempta- 
tions to evil, of which they were conscious, for 
we have no data to warrant such an assumption. 
This was not the language of the Sadducees, nor 
of the Pharisees, or Essenes (as has been thought 
by Bull, Ittig and Schneckenburger with refer- 
ence to their doctrine of the εἱμαρμένη), still less 
could he aim at Simon Majus (Caloy); on the 
other hand the reference is not simply to the gen- 
eral bias of the natural man to charge God some- 
how with the πειράζεσθαι, which the Jews might 
strengthen by misinterpretations of the Old Tes- 
tament (Huther; see also the Note p. 59; Prov. 
XIkso 7 SLE vel 12); for our Epistle deals 
throughout not with mere generalities, but with 
concrete relations.—67: is a much used formula 
of quotation; ἀπό, as Huther observes, is not 
as strong as ὑπό. [See Winer, p. 382, ἀπό--- 
through influences proceding from God.—M.]. 

Por God is not temptable.—The reasons 
for the foregoing in a twofold assertion respect- 
ing God. First, He is ἀπείραστος. This drat λεγό- 
μενον in the New Testament must not be con- 
founded with the classical ἀπείρατος (in the sense 
of inexperienced) as denoting: God has no expe- 
rience of evil (Schulthess, de Wette, Huther). 
Equally objectionable is the active construction 


of the word (Luther following the Vulgate ‘inten- 
tator’), for its weak grammatical basis, the Geni- 
tive κακῶν, its tautology both with respect to what 
goes before and to what follows forbid the active 
construction. The passive-adjective construction, 
however, not tempted, not temptable, which is 
generally adopted is not only not against gram- 
matical usage as Huther maintains, (see the 
adjectival ἀκατάστατος y. 8), nor against the 
connection, as he thinks also. For James wants 
to strengthen the dehortation, ‘Let no man say, 
etc.” For this saying, like all fanaticism, was a 
tempting God, and therefore vain and impious, 
because God does not suffer Himself to be 
tempted. Hence we might feel inclined to take 
κακῶν in the Masculine and to denote evil men; 
but this would probably be expressed more defi- 
nitely. To think of evils (Oecumenius) is some- 
what far-fetched, but also the evil in the Singular 
would be too general; the Plural in the present 
connection points to concrete and intensively 
evil things. [But there is an insuperable objec- 
tion to Lange’s derivation of the word from 
πειράζω; for ἀπείραστος is—untempted, not tempta- 
ble: but James argues not concerning God being 
tempted, but concerning God tempting. I there- 
fore prefer the common usage of the word ‘inex- 
perienced in’; so Alford, Winer and (in part at 
least) Wordsworth, who adds, ‘‘that James may 
perhaps refer to the false tenet of some of the 
heretics of the early Church, who said that it was 
the duty of men to have experimental knowledge of 
all evil, in order to the attainment of perfection.” 
See Palm and Rost’s Lexicon and Weststein for 
examples in favour of ‘inexperienced in’.—M.]. 
Secondly: But He Himself tempteth no 
one.—[Lange takes no notice of δὲ which has 
here adversative force and makes therefore 
against his rendering ‘not temptable,’ while it 
favours the rendering ‘inexperienced in;’ and 
δὲ here is—‘‘not so, but” Alford.—M.]. Second 
negation aimed at the substance of the proposi- 
tion “1 am tempted from God” (Huther). Αὐτός 
is construed differently ; Huther takes it as anti- 
thesis to what follows in the sense: it is not He 
who tempts, but every man is tempted ete. 
Theile and Wiesinger take it in contrast with 
what goes before: He Himself (self-active). And 
this is probably right; He suffers Himself not to 
be drawn by God-tempting fanatics into their 
unholy interests, but He Himself becomes tempter 
to no man; the solicitation to evil, in the trial 
which He appoints, is not from Him. Stress 
must therefore be laid on both—not He,—tempteth 
not any one. [Lange hardly does justice to Hu- 
ther whose view is very lucid. ‘Let no one say 
when he is tempted to evil, from God I am 
tempted: for God has no part in evil: but as to 
the temptation, He tempts no man ete.”—M. ]. 
[Wordsworth here quotes Augustine, 7ractat. 
in Joann. 43 and de consensu Evang. ii. 80, who 
raises a question on this passage. If God tempts 
no one, how is it that He is said in Scripture to 
tempt Abraham (Gen. xxii. 1)? To which he 
replies that St. James is speaking of temptations 
arising from evil motives with a view to an evil 
end. No such temptations are from God. But 
God is said to have tempted, that is, to have tried 
Abraham, from a good motive and for a good 
end. He tried him, in love to him and to all 


50 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


men, in order that he might become the Father 
of the faithful and be an example of obedience to 
all ages of the world.” See also Tertullian de 
Orat. c. 8. ‘God forbid that we should imagine 
that He tempts any one, as if He were ignorant 
of any man’s faith, or desired tu make any 
one fall. No, such ignorance and malice belong 
not to God, but to the devil, Abraham was 
commanded to slay his son, not for his tempta- 
tion but for the manifestation of his faith, as a 
pattern and proof to all, that no pledges of love, 
however dear, are to be preferred to God.— 
Christ, when tempted by the devil, showed who 
it is that is the author of temptation, and who it 
is that is our Guardian against it.’”,—M. ]. 

With reference to the seemingly contradictory 
passages Gen. xxii. 1; Deut. viii. 2 and others, 
it is first of all necessary to distinguish as much 
between temptation and obduracy as between 
Abraham and Pharaoh. According to the con- 
crete expression of the Old Testament God tempts 
Abraham by subjecting him to a trial to which 
the popular idea, handed down by tradition, 
clings as an element of temptation. He tempts 
Pharaoh by subjecting him to a trial in which 
the judgment of his self-delusion must reach its 
consummation. God therefore has no part what- 
soever in the temptation itself as a solicitation 
to evil but throughout concurs in it, in the 
beginning trying or proving, at the end judging, 
at the intermediate stages chastising and punish- 
ing. It is with reference to the punishing fea- 
ture in temptation that we pray: lead us not 
into temptation. God, as Calvin remarks, is 
neyer the author of eyil. 

The hideous form of the self-temptation of the 
erring by evil concupisence and its fruit—death. vv. 
14-16. 

Ver. 14. But every one is tempted.— 
Wiesinger wrongly insists upon the necessity of 
distinguishing the being tempted in this verse 
from the falling into temptation v. 2, as an in- 
trinsical occurrence. The representation of 
tempting lust under the figure of an unchaste 
woman rather shows that James thinks of the 
lust belonging to the person tempted objectively 
in some folly which he encounters extrinsically, 
just as in Prov. vii. 5, ete. But he is quite right 
in opposing the above drawn course of good 
demeanour in temptation to the now drawn 
course of misdemeanour. But this point we 
shall touch further on. The objective folly, 
therefore, encountered by the person tempted, 
is, according to the Apostle’s idea, really nothing 
else than his very own (ἰδία emphasized) lust; 
first, because it springs also, as the temptation 
of Satan and the world, from the same ungodly 
ἐπιθυμία, from the alter ego of his own sinfulness, 
and secondly, because his evil lust which has 
now become objective can only control him by 
his subjective evil lust. If, according to a well- 
founded distinction, we are tempted by the world, 
the devil and our own flesh and blood, we must 
further explain this thus: the temptation of the 
world and the devil also is in its nature uniformly 
homogeneous worldliness and selfishness and it 
is only in a man’s self-own and subjective evil 
lust that temptation is able to become to him an 
ensnaring temptation in a narrower sense. Thus 
the great temptation of that time was everywhere 


only one temptation both to the Jews and the 
Jewish-Christians; all those glittering, variegated 
visionary expectations which seductively met the 
individual, had sprung from the matter of the 
chiliastic, world-lusting, spiritual pride. It is 
on this property in the dazzling object that James 
lays principal stress, because every one must 
overcome the world and Satan in his own 
strength by overcoming himself. In the first 
place we have now to inquire why he renders 
the ἰδία ἐπιθυμία objective in the figure of the 
unchaste woman. According to Theile and 
Wiesinger the words: very one, ete., should be 
construed thus: very one is tempted by his own 
lust in that he is lured ete. The pure expression 
of the antithesis: ‘‘ tempted from God,” ‘*tempt- 
ed by his own lust,’’ seems to favour it. But 
this construction wipes out the figure that follows 
in its very conception. The sense is rather: 
‘« Buery one is tempted, in that he,” etc., according 
to the construing of Luther, de Wette and Huther; 
viz., his own inward concupiscence meeting him 
as a soliciting unchaste woman. For this image 
is immediately indicated by the verbs ἐξέλκειν 
and δελεάζειν. Schneckenburger observes on it: 
Verba e re venatoria et piscatoria in rem amatoriam 
et inde in nostrum tropum translata. ἐξέλκειν (in 
N. T. ἅπαξ dey.) and δελεάζειν are not synonymous 
(Pott: protahere in littus), in fact it has hardly a 
specific meaning in the res venatoria (Schultess: 
elicere bestias ex tuto); but in the res amatoria we 
may distinguish it from allurement proper in 
that it draws men from their intrinsicality and 
independence by dazzling interest (to draw off 
and to allure—Germ. ablocken and anlocken) ; 
δελεάζειν (from déAeap=esca exposita ad capienda 
animalia) occurs also 2 Pet. ii. 14, 18, and is used 
also by the classics metaphorically, always in a 
bad sense. Now we must not overlook the force 
of the Participles ἐξελκόμενος etc., they denote 
the process of development (becoming) in the 
course of which temptation becomes entangle- 
ment as far as man continues init. He is first 
drawn out from his inward self-control and for- 
tress and then attracted (drawn to) by the un- 
chaste woman’s allurings. [This is the reason 
why I have retained the Participles in my trans- 
lation.—M.]. But the intrinsical decision proper 
is further expressed by εἶτα συλλαβοῦσα. ᾿᾽Ἐπι- 
θυμία however does not denote ‘‘innocent sensu- 
ousness.” ‘The word occurs here, as it always 
occurs in the Ν, Τὶ (except where its specific 
object is indicated, as in Luke xxii. 15; Phil. i. 
23; 1 Thess. ii. 17) also without the addition of 
κακή, Capkikh, or some similar adjective, in sensu 
malo.’ Huther. ᾿Ἐπιθυμία is not, indeed, birth- 
sin per se (as Huther rightly observes), but just as 
little only an evil lusting for the commission of the 
deed springing from birth-sin, as he argues against 
Wiesinger, whose almost equivalent exposition 
he scruples to admit. It is birth-sin itself in its 
concrete activity (‘‘prava concupiscentia’’) viewed 
from its positive side as worldliness and selfish- 
ness, assuming in different situations innumerable 
variations. Maintaining with Pott the figurative 
description of different personifications, we find 
that the reference is not to four but to three 
generations. We have in succession the unchaste 
mother or the ἐπεθυμία, the unchaste daughter or 
ἁμαρτία in the narrower sense of deed-sin and 


CHAP. I. 13-18. 


51 


the son and grandson of the voluptuous mothers, 
the murderer-son death. Man yielding with his 
will to the allurement of evil lust, his moral 
relations assume a kind of natural sequence and 
the rest follows of itself. Lust becomes impreg- 
nated and brings forth sin, while sin brings forth 
(as it were out of itself or pursuant to its essen- 
tial connection with érivuia—hastening along 
with its own maturity the maturing of the here- 
ditary death-germ) death. 

Ver. 15. Then, when lust hath con- 
ceived.—This denotes man’s proper surrender- 
ing to his evil lust in a manner which indicates 
that it was to be expected because he kept stand- 
ing (continued, ) in the allurement (δελεαζόμενος). 
The eyil lust is fecundated 7. 6. it has obtained 
the mastery over the will of man. 


It bringeth forth sin. bp) “ἽΠ.).-- 

De Wette and al. make ἁμαρτία denote the intrin- 
sical act of sin and ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα the ex- 
trinsical deed-sin. But Wiesinger and Huther 
are right in saying that the intrinsical act is 
involved in συλλαβοῦσα. On the other hand 
Calvin, Schneckenburger, Wiesinger and al. take 
the ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα to denote the whole 
sinful life. But Huther says that it denotes the 
equal deed-sin, yet, in its entire development 
passing through its different stages until it sub- 
jects man to itself so that all reaction is at an 
end. ‘For ἀποτελεῖν is neither = perpetrare 
Pott), nor—operart (Laurentius), nor==rikrecy 
τεχθεῖσα, Baumgarten), but—=to complete; hence 
ἡ ἁμαρτία aroredcofeica =sin advanced to the 
completeness of its development. Now since sin 
makes its first appearance as a new-birth the 
allusion to the now matured unchaste young 
woman which several commentators have found 
in the ἀποτελεσθεῖσα, is not outside the cycle of 
James’s thoughts; the expression certainly 
brings out the idea that she did reach a false 
τέλος which is the opposite of the τέλος to 
which the believing Israelite attains in virtue 
of his well-demeanour. True Judaism has 
matured into Christianity, Judaizing into anti- 
christian apostasy. In point of meaning the 
exposition of Wiesinger coincides pretty much 
with that of Huther, but the latter has the 
preference of firmly keeping up the image of sin 
itself in its process of completion. 

Bringeth forth death.—‘The word ἀποκίύει 
(found in the N. T. only here and in y. 18) 
differs from rixrec only in that the former indi- 
cates more clearly that the ἁμαρτία is from the 
outset pregnant with the Yavaroc.”” Huther.— 
Huther and Wiesinger explain death both of 
temporal and eternal death, Rom. vi. 23. But 
between the two lies the historical, indeterminate 
(unabsehbar) death (which being indeterminate 
must therefore be distinguished from absolute 
death [Untergang]), and as soon as we consider 
the concrete import of this passage, this feature 
of death becomes of the utmost importance. 
And here we have to call attention to the anti- 
thesis which Wiesinger has found between vy. 3, 
4 and this passage. The first proposition that 
“the trial of faith by tribulation answers to the 
incitement of the will by lust” we consider to be 
false; to fall into temptation and to be tempted 
are identical. But the consciousness of the 


πειράζεσθαι and the ἐξελκόμενος and δελεαζόμενος 
in connection with the antithesis of operative 
πίστις there and operative ἐπιθυμία here, this is 
one real antithesis; the second is the ὑπομονῆ 
there and ἁμαρτία here. Again the ἔργον τέλειον 
there and the ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα here; lastly 
the τέλειοι there (connected with the στέφανος τῆς 
ζωῆς v. 12) and the θάνατος here. The last two 
antitheses Wiesinger has taken together. Ap- 
plying now the whole passage to the circum- 
stances peculiar to the time of James, the com- 
pleted sin denotes the completed apostasy of the 
Jewish people and death their historical judg- 
ment (see ch. vy. and Rom. x.). This of course 
does not exclude the more general meaning of 
our passage which opens the prospect of eternal 
death as well as the most specific meaning accord- 
ing to which every mortal sin is followed by 
spiritual death. We have still to notice the 
different dogma-tropes: sin brings forth death 
(James), sin is followed by death as its wages 
or punishment (Paul), sin is death (John),— 
Likewise we must guard our passage against the 
[Roman] Catholic inference that sin as such 
must be distinguished from eyil concupiscence 
(lust) with Calvin: ‘‘ Neque enim disputat Jacobus, 
quando incipiat nasci peccatum, ita ut peccatum sit et 
reputetur coram deo, sed quando emergat.”’ James, 
to be sure, and all Holy Scripture prompt us to 
distinguish intrinsical deed-sin or the evil counsel 
of the heart from the direct and natural motions 
of sinful desire. Lastly we must avoid the pre- 
sumption that James by the use of this frightful 
image simply wanted to didactically prove that 
temptation does not come from God; he also 
wanted his readers to understand it as to its real 
nature, origin and working. Hence the further 
admonition: ‘Be ye not deceived.” [Alford 
develops another view of the above image. ‘‘The 
harlot ἐπιθυμία, ἐξέλκει and δελεάζει the man: the 
guilty union is committed by the will embracing 
the temptress: the consequence is that she τίκτει 
ἁμαρτίαν sin, in general, of some kind, of that 
kind to which the temptation inclines: then 
ἡ ἁμαρτία that particular sin, when grown up and 
mature—herself ἀποκύει, ‘extrudit,’ as if all along 
pregnant with it, death, the final result of sin. 
So that temptation to sin cannot be from God, 
while trial is from Him.”—He also recalls 
the sublime allegory in Milton’s Paradise Lost 
(Book IT) where Satan by his own evil lust brings 
forth sin (‘‘out of thy head I sprung”’), and then 
by an incestuous union with sin ᾽ 
Back they recoil’d afraid 

At first and called me sin, and for a sign 

Portentous held me; but familiar grown, 

I pleased and with attractive graces won 

The most averse, thee chiefly, who full oft 

Thyself in me thy perfect image viewing 

Becam’st enamour’d, and such joy thou took’st 

With me in secret, that my womb conceived 

A growing burden.—) 
causes her to bring forth Death.—M. ]. 

Ver. 16. Be not ye deceived.—Although 
this sentence refers also to what follows (Theile) 
and not solely to what goes before (Gebser) the 
reference to the latter (Wiesinger) is greater than 
that tothe former. The expression, moreover, has 
the full pregnancy of a warning against objective 
images and spirits of temptation, according tode 


Wette, ““Ὅ6 not ye deceived,” and not with Geb- 
ser, ‘‘err not.”’ The warmth of this caution is 
heightened by the address: 

My beloved brethren, although they were 
to find the means of strengthening and confirm- 
ing this exhortation in the subsequent instruc- 
tion concerning the true God of revelation. Hu- 
ther: “The same formula is found in 1 Cor. vi. 
9; xv. 33; Gal. vi. 7 (a similar one 1 Jno. iii. 7 
[μηδεὶς πλανάτω tuac—M.], in all these passages 
it follows up a thought peculiar to the Christian 
consciousness, by which an antecedent statement 
receives its confirmation.” [Wordsworth: The for- 
mulas μὴ πλανῶ “06 not thow deceived,” and μὴ 
πλανᾶσθε ‘be not ye deceived,” are the preambles 
used in Scripture and by ancient Fathers, in or- 
der to introduce cautions against, and refutations 
of some popular error, as here.—M. ]. 

The opposing image of the true God, ete. 

Ver. 17. Every good giving (bestowing).— 
We ask leave to reproduce the Hexameter (see 
Winer, 2 68, 5a, p. 663) because nothing but a 
close consideration of the text has led us to do so, 
[The German rendering is as follows: ‘Jegliche 
gute Bescherung und alle vollkommene Gabe’’—the 


- VY - Vv - 
Greek original reads thus: πᾶσα dv| σις aya | Oy 


- - - - - VY 

kat | παν dw | ῥῆμα re | Aevov, the last syllable in the 
second foot ove being lengthened by the arsis.— 
M]. Standing by the side of δώρημα, δόσις can 
hardly have the same meaning as the former (as 
Huther maintains); δόσις rather denotes prima- 
rily the act of giving and secondarily the gift. 
But alongside of δώρημα, which denotes gift, do- 
nation, present, it becomes at all events the lesser 
giving, while δώρημα is the more weighty expres- 
sion. ‘To this must be added the gradation of 
the adjectives ἀγαθή, τέλειον. It is certainly un- 
founded to apply δόσις to gifts of nature and 
δώρημα to gifts of grace, but this does not involve 
an ideatity (so Huther) which is here very tauto- 
logically expressed. TéAecov must be made the 
starting-point of the exposition. According to 
the New Testament idea of τελείωσις, τέλειον cor- 
responds with the ἔργον τέλειον and the Chris- 
tians as τέλειοι, and with the ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσ- 
θεῖσα, v. 15. And just as the perfect work can 
only be understood as the consistent practical 
exhibition of the theocratical faith in Christi- 
anity, and as the τέλειος describes one who has 
decided for Christ, while sin completed denotes 
the*sin of Christ-inimical apostasy, so also 
δώρημα τέλειον signifies the gift of God completed 
in Christianity. Our δώρημα reminds us of 
Christ as χάρισμα, Rom. vy. 15; but here the re- 
ference is probably to the Christian revelation 
in the fulness of its gifts. This would make 
πᾶσα δόσις to denote everything which served to 
prepare this completed gift in the olden time, 
especially in the old covenant, according to the 
analogy of Heb. i. 1. The readers here and 
there should know that the one and only God 
presides over the difference and antithesis be- 
tween the Old Covenant and the New. It is not 
to be wondered at that several commentators 
(Raphelius, Augusti) were tempted to take πᾶσα 
and πᾶν in an exclusive sense, for the antithesis 
lay near: God tempts no man, nothing but good 
comes from Him. This would be a more distinct 
statement of the antithesis, but James wanted to 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


present it in a richer form: not only does no evil 
come from God, nay rather all good comes from 
Him. It is moreover ἄνωθεν καταβαῖνων in un- 
interrupted permanence, a perpetual rain and 
sunshine of gifts. The Participle is to be duly 
considered and we ought really to render: it 
comes and comes. The word gift for δώρημα is 
rather weak and donating would be more weighty 
than donation. [Bengel renders δόσις datio and 
δώρημα donum. On the whole décw—datio—giving, 
and dopyua—donum—gift, is probably the nearest 
rendering which the Latin and English tongues 
admit. Bp. Andrews, who has two sermons on 
this text, vol. iii. p. 36, and vol. v. p. 311 observes 
p. 313, that δόσις ἀγαθῇ, donatio bona or good giv- 
ing, represents rather the act of giving which be- 
stows things of present use for this life, whether 
for our souls or bodies, in our journey to our 
heavenly country; but δώρημα τέλειον or perfect 
gift, designates those unalloyed and enduring 
treasures, which are laid up for us in eternity. 
I have retained the Participle in my translation. 
—M.]. 

ΤΗΝ the Father of the lights.—Huther 
and Wiesinger agree with the majority of modern 
commentators that the lights here signify the 
heavenly bodies. But we do not believe that a 
single passage of Holy Writ can be produced 
in support of such an abnormal mode of expres- 
sion. Ps. exxxvi. the LXX. say concerning the 
stars τῷ ποιήσαντι φῶτα μεγάλα, Jer. iv. 23 τὰ 
φῶτα αὐτοῦ. But Scripture as well as the Nicene 
Creed uniformly distinguish make from create 
and beget. Job xxxviii. 28 surely does not mean 
that God is the father of rain. Setting aside the 
following explanations of the lights: knowledge 
(Hornejus), joy (Michaelis), wisdom or goodness 
(Wolf), it is hardly necessary to think of the 
Urim and Thummim (Heisen) and even the re- 
ference to the angels (Kern and Olshausen) can- 
not be retained. But the reference to the Sermon 
on the Mount, with which James is so intimately 
connected, is less remote. In Matth. v. 14, the 
disciples are called τὸ φῶς Tov κόσμου and in vy. 16, 
they are actually distinguished from their light 
as candlesticks or light-bearers. The Messiah is 
often called a Light in the Old Testament (Is. ix. 
2; xlix. 6, ete.) and in the New Testament it is 
an appellation by which He describes Himself 
(Jno. viii. 12; ef. ch. i. 4 and other passages). 
Also John the Baptist He calls a light Jno. v. 35 
and Phil. ii. 15 Christians are referred to: ὡς 
φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ. If in favour of the aforesaid 
exposition it is alleged that God Himself is called 
φῶς 1 Jno. i. 5 (ef. 1 Tim. vi. 15) it is neces- 
sary clearly to distinguish that ethical idea from 
the physical. The subsequent metaphors: παρ᾽ ᾧ, 
are claimed in favour of the disputed exposition; 
but they constitute an antithesis between God, 
the Light without shadow and the symbolical 
bodies of light, which are not without casting 
their shadows. Besides all this, believers as 
God-begotten children are distinguished in v. 18 
as an drapyf from the κτίσματα. The Scholion ap. 
Matth: ἤτοι τῶν ἀγγελικῶν δυνάμεων, ἢ τῶν πεφω- 


| τισμένων ἀνθρώπων, seems accordingly to be right 


in the last clause in the sense that the whole line 
of organs of revelation from Abraham to Christ 
as the representatives of all good spirits is what 
is meant here, [Bengel: Patris appellatio con- 


CHAP. I. 13-18. 


53 


—— 


gruens huic loco; sequitur ἀπεκύησεν. Ipse Patris, 
et matris, loco est. Est Pater luminum etiam spiri- 
tualium in regno gratix et gloriz. Ergo multo ma- 
gis Ipse Lux est, 1 John i. 5. Lucis mentione 
statim, ut solet, subjungitur mentio vite, ex regenera- 
tione. y. 18. There is no reason why the two 
interpretations should not be combined. God is 
the Father of αἷὲ lights, the lights of nature and 
the lights of grace; the Father not only of the 
light of reason and conscience, the light of 
knowledge and goodness but also the Father of 
the children of Light. To enter in this connec- 
tion upon hair-splitting distinctions between 
create, make and beget, seems hardly the thing. 
Whatever is gross and material is of course 
eliminated from the meaning of any of said three 
expressions, and if the spiritual conception of 
the Divine character as Maker, Creator and Fa- 
ther, has once been reached, metaphysical quib- 
bles may well be dispened with.—M. ]. 

With whom (as peculiar to whom) there 
is not existing.—We give this construction of 
the passage on account of ἔνε, without discussing 
the question whether ἔνε is a peculiar form 

Buttmann, Winer), or an abbreviation of ἔνεστι 
Meyer, Huther). 

A change ora shadow-casting.—In the 
first place it is to be remembered that these 
words are ἅπαξ λεγ. in the New Testament. Then 
the first word, being the more general, must be 
explained by the second and more definite one. 
The Greek commentators limit the figurative to 
the ἀποσκίασμα (Oecumenius, Theophylact and 
al.): with God there is no mutation or a shadow 
(i. 6. a trace or appearance of a change, or also 
of a reservation; they are followed among mo- 
dern expositors by Morus, Rosenmiiller, Hensler, 
Theile. The Latin commentators, on the other 
hand (Justinianus, Estius, a Lapide and al.) ap- 
ply the expression ad solis vicissitudines et conver- 
siones. Then also Luther (see the Translation), 
Grotius, Wetstein, Flatt, Schulthess. For a full 
treatment of the passage see Gebser, who ex- 
plains it of the shadows cast bythe solstice. Wie- 
singer suggests changes of the moon, solar and 
lunar eclipses and regards the shadow as the 
effect of τροπῇ; similar is the exposition of Hu- 
ther: the shadow cast on the heavenly body, 
effected by its changing position. But solar and 
lunar eclipses are phenomena too rare and 
transient in order to give a pregnant expression 
to the idea in question. And although there 
may not be used here any termini technici of 
Astronomy (as Huther observes) in their strict 
sense, the contemplation of the world in every 
age led probably to a sufficient knowledge of 
astronomy in order to recognize in the diurnal 
phenomenal revolution of the sun, the moon and 
the stars the cause of all nocturnal obscurings 
of the earth. .The sun has not only its annual 
but its diurnal solstice. In like manner the 
moon and the stars rise and set and leave us in 
absolute night. But God is ina very different 
sense the Light of the world, a Sun that never 
sets. To this refer Ps. cxxxix. 9,12; Job. xxxiv. 
22; it was also symbolized by the pillar of fire 
in the camp of the Israelites. Now if the ex- 
pression τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα denotes such a pheno- 
menal shadow-casting of the revolving heavenly 
bodies, we can hardly take παραλλαγῇ in a purely 


general sense (Huther)—mutation, but as a 
figurative description of a change of position 
(standing-place). This alternation is the first 
thing: the constant progression of the celestial 
bodies, the turning, follow as the result. Now 
if the heavenly bodies, as the created symbols 
of the Divine being of light, possess the property 
of being not without shadow and night we get 
the antithesis that God, the Father of the Lights 
is eternally the same, not only per se, but also in 
the phenomena of these lights: that is to say, 
He makes no revolution with the Old Testament 
which could cast a night-shadow on the New 
(as the Talmud at a later period attempted to 
make such a revolution), nor does He suffer 
the New Testament to cast a night-shadow on 
the Old (according to the later opinion of the 
Gnostics and of all rationalists). The Father of 
the lights remains unchanged even in this anti- 
thesis. [‘‘God is always in the meridian.” 
Wetstein.—Bengel’s note will be found useful: 
“παραλλαγὴ dicit mutationem in intellectu; (vide 
LXX. 2 Reg. ix. 20), τροπῇ mutationem voluntatis. 
In utroque vocabulo est metaphora a stellis, huic 
loco, ubi luminum mentio fit, aptissima. παραλ- 
λαγὴ et τροπὴ est in natura (vid. τροπὰς Job. Xxxviii. 
33) que habet quotidianam vicissitudinem diei et 
noctis, et longiores modo dies modo noctes: in Deo 
nil tale est. Ipse est Lux mera, παραλλαγὴ et τροπὴ, 
si qua accidit, penes nos est, non penes Patrem lumi- 
num. ἀποσκίασμα interdum dicit ὁμοίωμα. Sic enim 
Hesychius interpretatur. unde Gregorius Naz. TO 
τῆς ἀληϑείας ἴνδαλμα καὶ ἀποσκίασμα tanguam syn- 
onyma ponit: et apud Tullium, Budzxo observante, 
adumbratio rei opponitur perfectioni ejus; sed 
hoc loco opponitur luminibus, adeogue magis proprie 
sumitur, ut ἀποσκίασμα τροπῆς sit jactus umbree 
primulus, revolutionem habens conjunctam. Idem 
Hebraismus genitivi moz, abundantiam malitie, ex 
quo colligere licet, τὸ transmutatio opponi τῷ datio 
bona, guemadmodum vicissitudinis obumbratio 
opponitur τῷ donum perfectum. παραλλαγὴ ali- 
quid majus est.Hine gradatio in oratione negante: 
ne quidem vicissitudinis adumbratio. Hoc de- 
mum efficit perfectionem; {μα bonum est. Per- 
fectior est, qui ne quidem vicissitudinis adumbratio- 
nem habet.”’—M. ]. 

The exaltation of the children of God begotten by 
the word of truth. 

Ver. 18. Pursuant to free decree hath He 
begotten us.—The connection of these words 
with what goes before is differently construed: 
1. as codrdination: God the Father of lights is 
also the Author of our regeneration (Theile) ; 
2. as exemplification: generatio spiritualis, quast 
exemplum aliqguod donorum istorum spiritualium 
(Laurentius, de Wette); 3. as an inference drawn 
from the general idea of the former (Huther). 
But regeneration, as matter of experience, can- 
not be inferred from a dogma concerning God; 
4. as proof or demonstration (Gebser, Kern). 
Wiesinger’s remarks are excellent: “The grea- 
test δώρημα (v. 18) which consists in the Divinely 
effected regeneration of man by the word of 
truth, is now mentioned by the author in lieu of 
everything else as the brightest actual proof that 
nothing evil, but all good comes from God. This 
act of His holy love is at once the strongest ex- 
hortation to a demeanour well-pleasing to Him. 
(νυ. 19 etc.).” The Apostle shows therefore how 


54 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


the heaven-descended δώρημα τέλειον had evi- 
denced itself as such by its effect, viz. the re- 
generation of believers. Now in thus laying the 
strongest emphasis on the exalted dignity, the 
ὕψος of Christians following from their regenera- 
tion, he also emasculates thereby the fallacy of 
that seductive fanaticism, which would fain mis- 
lead them to pursue a false phantom of this ex- 
altation on chiliastic and revolutionary paths. 
At the same he presents to all Jews this true 
life-picture of their exaltation. Βουληϑείς is the 
emphatic beginning of the sentence. ‘* Pursuant 
to his established (Aorist) free decree.” The ele- 
ment of love (Bengel: voluntate amantissima) lies 
primarily not in the word itself but in its con- 
nection. The antithesis is (according to Bede, 
Calvin and al.) the meritoriousness of good 
works. It lies however nearer to see the pri- 
mary reference to the Jewish claims to the king- 
dom (Rom. ix.), especially because the βουληϑείς 
at any rate contains the element of voluntary 
determination. The verb itself, used here, 
shows plainly that reference is made not to na- 
tural birth, but to regeneration, tur ἀποκύειν is 
the synonyme of γεννᾷν etc. (1 Jno. 111. 9; 1 Pet. 
i. 23; 2 Pet. i. 4).” So Huther rightly answers 
Pott, who wants to explain ἀποκύειν by facere, 
efficere. 

Us, i. e., the Christians. But the objective re- 
generation of humanity in Christ was primarily 
also designed for the Jews as the regeneration of 
the nation and the theocracy, and to this teleo- 
logical element the sequel constrains us to give a 
proper share of our consideration. Besides this 
objective element, subjectively realized by be- 
lievers, we must also take cognizance of the em- 
phasis: begotten by the Father of lights and thus 
destined to the enjoyment of the most exalted 
dignity. [Bengel, as usual, gives us the pith of 
the whole riches of thought in a nutshell and 
supplies commentators with mental food. Much 
of Lange’s view may be traced back to Bengel, 
and some of the beautiful reflections of Words- 
worth, which we shall produce under Doctrinal 
and Ethical, seem to flow from the same source. 
He says: βουληθεῖς, volens, voluntate amantissima, 
liberrima, purissima, foecundissima. Hebr. ἌΝ ab 
PION voluit; cf. Jno. i. 18.  Congruit ἔλεος, 
misericordia, 1 Pet. i. 3.  Antitheton, concupis- 
centia cum conceperit.—darexbyoev. Antitheton, 
ἀποκύει, vy. 15 (ef. also what he says on v. 17, 
Ipse (Deus) Patris et matris loco est.—M. }. 

By the word of truth.—The Gospel as the 
completion of “the whole word of revelation. The 


word of truth regarded not only as opposed to | 


the law as such, or even to the tradition of the 
law, but especially also as opposed to the lies and 
frauds of fanaticism which promised to make the 
readers of the Epistle sons of the kingdom. This 
also chimes in with the antithesis in time: what 
the temptation promises you in a phantom, the 
word of truth has already made us in reality. 
The word of truth, ἡ, e., the word which is truth 
( Genit. Appos. [ef. Jno. xvii. 17: ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς 
ἀλήθεια ἐστι----Ν.}}, but also the expression and 
life of truth (1 Pet. i. 28; ef. Eph. i. 13; Col. i. 
5—evayyéAwv; 2 Tim. ii. 15). The whole Epistle 
shows that James meant the mediation of this 
word by Christ, but the idea is more general be- 
cause by this completion he comprehends into 


one whole the entire Old Testament as Christian- 
ity in process of being (or becoming). [These 
words are also susceptible of a different interpre- 
tation. According to it the λόγος is personal and 
denotes the Ergernat Worp, the Second Person 
in the Holy Trinity, by WHom we have been born 
again (cf. 1 Pet. i. 23), ‘* Wao for our sakes be- 
came Incarnate and by being Incarnate gave ‘to 
those, who receive Him power to become sons of 
God,” who are born, not of blood, nor of the 
will of the flesh, but of God (Jno. i. 13), and 
through whom we cry ‘Abba, Father” (Rom. 
viii. 15; Gal. iii. 26), and become “ partakers of 
the Divine nature.” Wordsworth. The noble 
array of authorities, in favour of this interpreta- 
tion, will be found under ‘‘DocrrinaL AND 
Eruicau.”—M. ]. 

That we should be; not that we should Je- 
come. But the teleological mode of expression is 
probably chosen in order to indicate that the 
Jews should become what Christians already are. 

A (kind of) first fruit.—Calvin: τινὰ similitu- 
dinis est nota; nos qguodam modo esse primitias. So 
Huther, Wiesinger, Gebser and al. But James 
hardly needed to give prominence to this symboli- 
cal mode of speech in an Epistle, symbolical 
throughout. It was self-evident. But on that 
account we are hardly prepared to understand 
the reference in the word with Bengel: ‘‘quaedam 
habet modestiam, nam primitize proprie et absolute 
est Christus.” Christ is here included as Media- 
tor of the Christian first fruit. But James, using 
this expression, might well recollect that the an- 
gels of God are a different kind of first-fruit of 
the creation. It has been inferred from this 
passage that Christians are also superior to the 
angels; at all events they are codrdinated with 
them as a different type of celestial first-born. 
The frequent occurrence of this word in a sym- 
bolical sense (Lev. xxiii. 10; Numb. xviii. 12; 
Deut. xxvi. 2) removes all doubt that ἀπαρχῇ al- 
ludes to the God-consecrated first-fruit in the Old 
Covenant (Laurentius: allusio est ad ritum legalem 
in V. T. de consecratione primogenitorum, frugum, 
Jumentorum et hominum). The word therefore in- 
volves also the idea that Christians are a people 
consecrated to the service of God, even as the 
first-consecrated in relation to the future conver- 
sion of the Gentiles and ‘the glorification of the 
world.” (Huther.) But this does not warrant 
the inference drawn by Huther and Wiesinger 
that the first-born in point of time settles the idea 
of first-fruit in point of dignity. Even in the 
province of nature the idea of the first-born or 
matured is more or less connected with the idea 
of the excellent. In the New Testament, how- 
ever, this idea of the word in a spiritual sense, 
is repeatedly made prominent (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23; 
xvi. 15; Rev. xiv. 4). But there is yet another 
element of the idea, which has to be decidedly 
held fast. As the first-fruit was at once the pro- 
phecy and surety of the whole subsequent har- 
vest, so Christ as ἀπαρχή of the resurrection is 
surety for the subsequent stages of the resurrec- 
tion, so the Holy Ghost in believers is surety for 
the subsequent glory (Rom. vii. 23); so the first 
believers of Israel in their unity are sureties for 
the future conversion of the whole nation, Rom. 
xi. 6. We see no reason for abandoning any one 
of these three elements, 1, The God-consecrated 


CHAP. I. 13-18. 


55 


first-fruit people, 2. the first dignity of the real 
children of God involved in it, 3. the living se- 
curity for future conversions, even for the glori- 
fication of the world. Huther ojects to the 
second element that instead of τινὰ we ought 
to Rave κτισμάτων followed by νέων or καινῶν. 
But the difficulty with regard to τινὰ has been 
settled above, and Huther’s exposition, not ours, 
would require a νέων. Even the taking of πρῶτοι 
in the sense of τιμιώτατοι or some similar word 
(in Oecumenius) is not against the. Apostle’s 
idea; it only presents modifications and conse- 
quences of πρῶτοι. 

Of His creatures.—This expression which 
relates generally to the whole creation but parti- 
cularly to God’s moral institutions in mankind, 
brings out primarily the second sense of ἀπαρχῆ, 
as in Ps. viii; Rom. viii; 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3; but 
also the third sense. Christians as God’s ἀπαρχῇ 
are not only superior to the doings of the moral 
world and to the propensities of the natural 
world, but they are also as God’s ἀπαρχή sureties 
for the glorification of the world. The κτίσματα 
τοῦ θεοῦ, although they are not really the καινὴ 
κτίσις (Olshausen), but the ἀπαρχὴ θεοῦ belongs 
also to them, as a surety that they will ripen into 
the καινή κτίσις, just as the first-fruits are an 
ἀπαρχή of the ripening fields. The depth of 
Christian knowledge contained in this passage 
has been admirably set forth by Wiesinger, p. 
88, etc., to which the reader is referred. [We 
give it below under ‘‘DocTRINAL AND ETHIcaL.” 
—M.]. Particular note should be taken of the 
striking accord of this passage in James with the 
fundamental ideas of the doctrine of Paul, in 
βουληθείς, election, free grace; in ἀπεκύησεν the 
doctrine of regeneration and the new creature, in 
the λόγος ἀληθείας the antithesis of law and sym- 
bol, in the ἀπαρχῆ not only the relation of Chris- 
tians to the world, but in particular the relation 
of the Jewish Christians to the Jews (Rom. x.), 
and in the κτίσματα his doctrine of the glorifica- 
tion of the world by Christ, Rom. viii.; Eph. i. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 

If there is one question, which for centuries has 
engaged and exhausted the reflection of the most 
celebrated philosophers, it is this: whence is 
moral evil? Moral evil, disorder in the dominion 
of a God of order and justice, a discord in the 
harmony of creation, an ever-flowing spring of 
misery by the side of so many and copious foun- 
tains of happiness opened for us by a higher 
Love. Who is the author of its disastrous exist- 
ence? Does it come from God? If so, how could 
God be just and holy? And if it does not come 
from Him, how could it originate, continue and 
rule from the world’s first dawn until now? 
There is no thinker who has not stood in silent 
contemplation‘of the riddle and there is also no 
thinker who has been able to resist the tempta- 
tion of making at least an effort towards its solu- 
tion. The various schools of Greek philosophy 
exhibit the most contradictory principles. The 
most different gnostic systems of the second cen- 
tury we see revolve round this problem as if it 
were their immutable centre. And even the 
speculative philosophy of our century, no mat- 
ter how often its idealism departed from the 
maxims of experienee, found it impessible wholly 


to overlook this dark back-ground of all human 
self-consciousness and had to include the investi- 
gation of evil in the course of its contemplations, 
if forno other purpose than that of denying the 
reality of sin as constituting the guilt of man- 
kind. The most important efforts of human 
thought to explain the origin of moral evil have 
been discussed in a masterly manner by Julius 
Miiller in his classical work, ‘Die Christliche 
Lehre von der Siinde”’ (new edition, 1844.) 

2. The principal features of the doctrine, 
which James here presents concerning the origin 
of sin, may be compressed into one sentence, 
viz.: Sin is in no event God’s fault but altogether 
our own. Every explanation of the origin of sin 
which makes God directly or indirectly the causa 
efficiens mali, James condemns in toto (as to its 
inmost ground), as does also Paul, Rom. iii. 8. 

3. Nothing is more common than the en- 
deayour to charge God directly or indirectly 
with the guilt of our transgressions. Even the 
heathen sought shelter in the subterfuge that 
some divinity or irresistible demon had impelled 
them to evil and the Jews asked ‘‘Why does he 
yet find fault?” Rom. ix. 19. The most ancient 
art of sinful mankind was the sewing of fig- 
leaves (Gen. iii. 7), and also the modern ra- 
tionalism of our century in this respect seems 
neither to have learnt nor to have forgotten any 
thing. Sin, in the opinion of modern rational- 
ists, is a relative, yet an altogether unavoidable 
evil. Is God not the Almighty who creates light 
and darkness, the Infinite from whom, by whom, 
and to whom are all things absolutely, the Om- 
niscient, who foresaw the abuse of moral freedom 
and might easily have prevented it? It is there- 
fore plainly thus: man could not but altogether 
fall and he falls not only with the high sanction 
but also according to the will and arrangement 
of God. Sin is a wholly indispensable part of 
our earthly plan of education just as a child 
would never have learned to walk without having 
previously stumbled. Sin is the inseparable 
shade-side of the light of perfection, which as it 
shines is inconceivable without a shadow. Sin 
is a want of development, an imperfection, 
grounded nolens volens in the organization of our 
race, for which we can no more be held account- 
able than for having feet but no wings. Thus 
sin, which is free choice and a daring opposition 
to God, is fundamentally made to be a rule and 
what might yet be wanting to the fair-seeming 
theory, appears in still more glaring colours in 
practice. Even the dullest mind becomes inex- 
haustible in wit and understanding if it is neces- 
sary to excuse the commission of evil. There is 
nothing more difficult even to infant lips than 
the admission of personal guilt. Now it is the 
fault of others or of circumstances in which we 
find ourselves placed, again it is the fault of our 
temperament or the natural infirmity of an origi- 
nally excellent heart. Aye, how many a Chris- 
tian seeks to lessen his guilt with the pious sigh 
that God had let go his hand for a moment, that 
the Lord had hidden His countenance from him 
so that now he could not evince himself as a child 
of light; that the flesh had proved too strong for 
him and it was really not he that kept on sin- 
ning, but the invincible principle of flesh within 
himself. If James were to revisit us, he would not 


56 


have any occasion to withdraw his exhortation 
as superfluous: ‘Let no man, being tempted, 
say, 1 am tempted from God.”’ 

4, It is only necessary to enter somewhat more 
profoundly into the idea that God in the most 
absolute sense of the word is ἀπείραστος κακῶν in 
order to perceive the infinite superiority of the 
Christian conception of God to the ethnical. 
James, in this respect, occupies not only a lofty 
religious but also a purely ethical standpoint. 
Just as the conception of God with many is ob- 
scured by sins, so on the other hand, the Chris- 
tian conception of God corrects many confused 
or one-sided theories of the origin of sin. 

5. In order that we may thoroughly under- 
stand the teaching of James respecting the origin 
of sin, we must in particular not lose sight of the 
point, that it is not so much his intention to ac- 
count for the origin of sin among mankind as to 
describe it in the human individual: in other 
words that he here treats of the matter rather 
psychologically than metaphysically. Rational- 
istic commentators who consequently use James 
i, 14, 15 as ἃ weapon against Gen. 111. and Jno. 
viii. 44, act most arbitrarily. The matter has 
two sides only one of which is touched by James, 
while he does not invalidate the other, no matter 
how true it may be in itself. Cf. Jas. iv. 7. 
What he deseribes is the history of sin in every 
individual man, and that in three different pe- 
riods: in its beginning, its progress and its end. 

6. James in declaring that lust, having con- 
ceived, brings forth sin, does by no means imply 
that ἐπιθυμία per se is not altogether sin. The 
concupiscentia in this case is already prava, but it 
is here expressly set forth not as the mother of 
the sinful principle but of the sinful deed. The 
Protestant Church at every period has rightly 
opposed to the pelagianizing tendencies of [Ro- 
man] Catholicism the assertion that also the 
ἐπιθυμία of man, which eventually becomes deed- 
sin, is sinful in itself (per se). Paul also denies 
that the law is sin, not that lust is sin, Rom. vii. 
7. Besides the history of every more signal sin, 
6. g., that of Adam or Pharaoh, David, Ahab and 
many others furnishes the most striking proofs 
of the correctness of the delineation here given. 
‘This passage is greatly abused if it is cited as 
a proof that evil desires are not sin, provided 
man withhold his consent. For James does not 
discuss the question when sin begins, when it is 
sin before God and imputed as sin, but when it 
breaks forth. Thus he gradually progresses to 
show that the completion of sin is the cause of 
eternal death, but that sin is rooted in a man’s 
own lust; whence it follows that men shall reap 
in eternal ruin the fruit which they themselves 
have sowed.” Chrysostom. 

7. The idea of guilt, which is here so emphati- 
cally expressed by James, is of the utmost im- 
portance to the whole development of scientific 
theology. Not until sin in its true nature is ac- 
knowledged as guilt, are we able to appreciate 
the depth of the doctrines of the atonement and 
of redemption. But then it must be equally ac- 
knowledged that only a Redeemer, who was 
really God-man, was able to deliver us from 
eternal ruin. The right conception of Soteri- 
ology and Christology is thoroughly rooted in the 
deeper insight into Hamartology. 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


8. It is impossible that God should be at va- 
riance with Himself, that His holiness should con- 
flict with His love. The same God whom James 
describes in y. 17 as ἀπείραστος κακῶν he sets 
forth in v. 17 as the eternal source (Gezman 
primal source) of light from whom all gift nd 
only good gifts flow to us. This declaration also 
reminds us of the Sermon on the Mount, Matth. 
vii. 11. God is here called the Father of lights, 
as elsewhere He is described as the Father of 
spirits, the God of the spirits of all flesh, Heb. 
xii. 9; Numb. xvi. 22. James describes the in- 
exhaustible riches of the goodness and the glory 
of the immutability of God in a form at once 
poetical and metrical ““πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ, καὶ πᾶν 
δώρημα τέλειον, in order to show also thereby 
that the inference ‘‘that such a God could yet 
be the cause of sin”’ contains the strongest con- 
tradictio in terminis. For it is impossible that the 
Father of lights should love darkness; He, with 
whom there is no change, cannot possibly cause 
to-day the evil which yesterday He did forbid or 
punish; detestable sin, so often condemned by 
Him, in no event can belong to His good and per- 
fect gifts. ‘*The New Testament positively op- 
poses the repulsive assertion of a self-develop- 
ment of God.”’ Heubner. 

9. The greatest proof of the absolute impossi- 
bility of God being the cause of sin lies in the 
opposite experience of believers themselves* (y. 
18), where the greatest and most glorious of all 
good gifts (v. 17), although stated in general 
terms, is yet specifically named. The history 
of the birth of sin (vy. 15) is opposed (vy. 18) to 
the spiritual history of the birth of Christians in 
order to shed thereby the brightest light on the 
fact that God who effects regeneration, cannot 
possibly be the author of its contrary—evil. 
Those who attach but little importance to the 
Epistle of James in a dogmatical point of view 
would do well to give their earnest and thought- 
ful attention to his dictum classicum concerning 
regeneration, v. 18. We have here in fact the 
depth and riches of Paul in a brief compendium. 
See the exegetical notes on the passage. James’ 
mode of statement exhibits also a surprising 
agreement with that of Peter (1 Pet. i. 23). 

[v. 15. The progressive development of tempta- 
tion is thus stated by Bede: 1. Suggestio. 2. De- 
lectatio. 8. Consensus. Suggestio est hostis, delec- 
tatio autem vel consensus est nostre fragilitatis. 
Si delectationem cordis partus sequitur prave actio- 
nis, nobis jam mortis reis victor hostis abscedit. For 
further illustration see Wordsworth. 

v. 16. Bp. Andrewes (Sermons, 3, p. 374): 
“Though of man it be truly said by Job, “6 
never continueth in one stay’ (Job. xiv. 2); 
though the lights of heaven have their parallaxes; 
yea, ‘‘the angels of heaven, he found not stead- 
fastness in them” (Job. iv. 18); yet for God, He 
is subject to none of them. He is ‘‘Zyo sum qui 
sum” (Ex. iii. 14); that is, saith Malachi, “yo 
Deus et non mutor (Mal. 111,0). We are not what 
we were awhile since, what we shall be awhile 
after, scarce what we are; for every moment 
makes us vary. With God it is nothing so, “ἢ 
is that He is; He is and changeth not.” He 
changes not histenor; He says not, before Abra- 
ham was, 7 was; but ‘before Abraham was, 1 
am” (Jno. viii. 58). 


CHAP. I. 13-18. 


57 


Yet are there ‘‘varyings and changes,” it can- 
not be denied. We see them daily: True, but 
the point is per guem, on whom to lay them? Not 
on God. Seems there any recess? It is we for- 
sake Him, not He us (Jer. 11, 17). It is the ship 
that moves, though they that be in it think the 
land goes from them, not they from it. Seems 
there any variation, as that of the night? It is 
umbra terre makes it, the light makesit not. Is 
there anything resembling a shadow? A vapour 
rises from us, and makes the cloud, which is as 
a pent-house between, and takes Him from our 
sight. That vapour is our lust, there is the apud 
quem. Is any tempted? It is Ais own lust doth 
it; that enticeth him to sin; that brings us to 
the shadow of death. It is not God. No more 
than He can be tempted, no more can He tempt 
any. Ifwe find any change, the apud is with 
us, not Him; we change, Heis unchanged. ‘‘Man 
walketh in a vain shadow.” (Ps. xxxix. 6). 
His ways are the truth. He cannot deny Him- 
self. 

Every evil, the more perfectly evil it is, the 
more it is from below: it, either rises from the 
steam of our nature corrupted; or yet lower, 
ascends as a gross smoke, from the bottomless pit, 
from the prince of darkness, as full of varying 
and turning into all shapes and shadows, as God 
is far from both, who is uniform and constant in 
all His courses. .—The lights may vary, He is in- 
variable; they may change, He is unchangeable, 
constant always and like Himself. Now our les- 
sons from these are— 

1. Are they given? Then, guid gloriaris? Let 
us have no boasting. Are they given, why for- 
get the Giver? Let Him be had in memory, Heis 
worthy so to be had, 

2. Are the ‘‘giving” as well as the ‘‘gift”’ and 
the “good” as the ‘perfect,’ of gift, both? 
Then acknowledge it in both; take the one asa 
pledge, make the one as a step to the other. 

8. Are they from somewhere else, not from 
ourselves? Learn then to say, and to say with 
feeling, Non nobis, Domine, quia non a nobis 
(Ps. evi. 1), 

4. Are they from on high? Look not down to 
the ground, then, as swine to the acorns they 
find lying there, and never once up to the tree 
they come from. Look up; the very frame of 
our body gives that way. It is nature’s check 
_to us to have our head bear upward and our 

heart grovel below. 

5. Do they descend? Ascribe them then to 
purpose, not to time or chance. No table to 
fortune, saith the prophet. Is. Ixy. 11. 

6. Are they from the ‘Father of lights?” 
(Jer. x. 12) then neyer go to the children, a sig- 
nis ceeli nolite timere: ‘‘neither fear nor hope for 
any thing from any light of them at all.” 

7. Are His “gifts without repentance?” (Rom. 
ii. 29). Varies He not? Whom He loves, doth 
‘He love to the end?” (Jno. xiii. 1). Let our 
service be so too, not wavering. O that we 
changed from Him no more than He from us! 
Not from the light of grace to the shadow of sin, 
as we do full often. 

But above all, that which is ex totd substantia, 
that if we find any want of any giving or gift, 
good or perfect, this text gives us light, whither 
to look, to whom to repair for them; to the 

5 


‘“¢Father of lights.”” And even so let us do. Ad 
patrem luminum cum primo lumine: ‘Let the light, 
every day, so soon as we see it, put us in mind 
to get us to the Father of Lights.”  Ascendat 
oratio, descendat miseratio, ‘‘let our prayer go up 
to Him that His grace may come down to us,” so 
to lighten us in our ways and works, that we 
may in the end come to dwell with Him, in the 
light which is φῶς ἀνέσπερον, “light whereof 
there is no eventide,”’ the sun whereof never 
sets, nor knows tropic—the only thing we miss, 
and wish for in our lights here, primum et ante 
omnia. [A part of the above really belongs to 
‘‘HOMILETICAL and PRACTICAL”? but I doubt not 
that the reader will be thankful to me for not 
haying attempted to sever the practical element 
from the doctrinal—M. ]. 

[V. 18. WorpsworrH:—With reverence be it 
said, in the work of our Regeneration, God is both 
our Father and Mother; and this statement well 
follows the declaration of the Apostle that every 
good giving and every perfect gift is from above, 
coming down from the Father of lights. He isa 
Father, the Father of lights, and He is like a 
Mother also, and gives birth to us by the Word 
of truth. 

Compare the use of the maternal word ὠδίνω, 
parturio, used by St. Paul in one of his tenderest 
expressions of affectionate yearning for his spi- 
ritual children, Gal. iv. 19. 

By this word azexiyoev, He brought us forth, 
St. James declares God’s maternal love for our 
souls. Is. xlix, 15. Ps. xxvii. 12. 

—The view ‘which makes ὁ λόγος personal is 
not in conflict with the common view; it is based 
on the recognition of the two senses in which St. 
James and St. Paul use it. Cf. Heb. iv. 12; 
Eph. v. 26; Tit. i, 3; Gal. iv. 19. The com- 
parison of this verse (James i. 18) with i. 21 
shows that James passes by a natural transition 
from the Incarnate Word to the reception of the 
Inspired Word. 

ATHANASIUS (contra Arianos iii. 3 61, p. 483): 
‘¢Whatsover the Father determines to create, 
He makes and creates by Him (the Word), as the 
Apostle says. By His will he brought us forth 
by the Word. Therefore the will of the Father, 
which concerns those who are born again, or 
which concerns those things that are made by 
any other way, is in the Word, in whom He 
makes and regenerates what He thinks fit.” 

Inen 2s (ii. 25, 3):—‘*Thou, O man, are not 
uncreated, nor wert thou always coéxistent with 
God, like His own Word, but thou art gradually 
learning from the Word the dispensations of God 
who made thee.” 

TERTULLIAN (6. Prazean. c. 7),illustrating the 
word ἀπεκύησεν says: ““ Christus primegenitus et 
unigenitus Dei proprie de vulva cordis Ipsius.” 

NovaTian (de Trinit. 31):—‘‘There is one 
God, without any origin, from whom the Word, 
the Son was born:,. He,. born of. the Father, 
dwells ever in the Father.” 

TueEopuitus of Antioch (2 10): ‘God, having 
His Own Word indwelling: in His own bowels 
(σπλάγχνοις), begat Him, having breathed Him 
forth before all things, and through Him He hath 
made all things; and He is called the Beginning, 
because He is the Principle and Lord of all things 
which were created through Him.” 


58 


Hirpowitus (Philos. p. 334):—‘‘The One Su- 
preme God generates the Word in His own mind. 
The word was in the Father, bearing the Will of 
the Father who begat Him; and when the Father 
commanded that the world should be created, 
the Word was executing what was pleasing to 
the Father,—The Word alone is of God, of God 
Himself; wherefore He is God. The Word of 
God regulates all things, the First-born of the 
Father. Christ is God over all, who commanded 
us to wash away sin from man; regenerating the 
old man, and haying called man His image from 
the beginning; and if thou hearkenest to His holy 
commandment and imitatest in gocdness Him 
who is good, thou wilt be like Him, being honoured 
by Him, for God has a longing for thee, having 
divinized thee also for his glory.” 

Be. Butt (Def. Fid. Nic. II. ch. ii.) says: 
“The Son of God, born from Hternity, is said by 
the Fathers to have certain other births in time. 
He was born into the world when He came forth 
to create the world. He was born again in a 
wonderful manner, when He descended into the 
womb of the virgin and united Himself to His 
creature. He is daily born in the hearts of those 
who embrace Him by faith and love.” 

ΒΡ. Pearson (p. 219) says: ‘“‘This use of the 
term Word was familiar to the Jews, and this 
was the reason that St. John delivered to them 
so great amystery in so few words.” Wordsworth 
adds that the same remark is applicable to the 
language of St. James. 

Br. Buuu (Def. Fid. Nic. I. ch. i. 9 17-19, and 
Harm, Apost. Diss. 2. ch. xv.). In the latter pas- 
sage he declares the meaning of St. James to be 
that our Christian graces proceed from ‘the 
good pleasure of God through Christ, and from 
the regeneration which the Holy Spirit works in 
us through the Gospel.” 

WorpswortH:—‘‘They whom St. James ad- 
dressed, being born again by adoption and ere- 
ated anew in Christ Jesus, the Eternal Word (Eph. 
ii. 10), might well be said to be designed by 
God to be a first-fruit of His creatures, for they 
were new creatures in Christ (Gal. vi. 15; 2 Cor. 
v. 17), who is the first begotten of every creature 
(Col. i. 15), the beginning of the creation of God 
(Rev. iii. 14), by whom all things were created 
(Col. i. 16). By virtue of His incarnation and 
of their incorporation and filiation in Him, who 
is the first-born among many brethren (Rom. viii. 
29), they were made the first-fruits of creation, 
being advanced to a high preéminence and pyi- 
macy, beyond that which was given to Adam be- 
fore the fall (Gen. i. 28) and even above the 
angels themselves. Cf. Heb. i. 5-13; ii. 5, 7- 
101" “This higher sense of λόγος includes 
also the lower one, God brought us forth by the 
Word of truth, preached to the world.””—M. ]. 

{The Note of Wiesinger, referred to under 
“* Bregetical and Critical” is as follows: ‘this 
passage is among those which reveal the depth 
of Christian knowledge in which the practical 
and moral exhortations of the writer are 
grounded: lying as it does expressly (δεόνν. 19) 
at the basis of them. We will here bring to- 
gether ina few words the teaching of the pas- 
sage, for the sake of its important bearing on 
the rest of the Epistle. It teaches us 

1. As a positive supplement to vy. 14, 15, that 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


the life of man must be renewed, from its very 
root and foundation; 

2. It designates this renewal as God’s work, 
moreover as an imparting of the life of God 
(ἀπεκύησε), as only possible by the working of 
the Spirit, only on the foundation of the objective 
fact of our redemption in Christ, which is the 
contents of the λόγος ἀληθείας ; 

8. It sets forth this regeneration as an act 
once for all accomplished (ἀπεκύησεν, Aor.) and 
distinguishes it from the gradual penetration and 
sanctification of the individual life by means of 
this new principle of life imparted in the rege- 
neration. 

4, It declares also expressly that the regene- 
ration is a free act of God’s Love (βουληθείς) not 
induced by any work of man (Eph. ii. 8, 9; Tit. 
iii. 5), so that man is placed by God in his right 
relation to God, antecedently to all works well- 
pleasing to God: for this the expression ἀπεκύη- 
σεν involves: ef. ἐξελέξατο, ch. ii. 5, and in so 
far as this ἀπεκύησεν necessarily implies the jus- 
tification of the sinner (the δικαιοῦσθαι of St. 
Paul), it is plain also, that St. James cannot, 
without contradicting himself, make this δικαιοῦ- 
σθαι, in the sense of St. Paul, dependent on the 
works of faith. 

5. λόγος ἀληθείας is specified as the objective 
medium of regeneration; and herewith we must 
have πίστις as the appropriating medium on the 
part of man himself: of the central import of 
which πίστις in St. James we have already seen 
something (ch. ii. 5, 14, etc.). 

6. Together with this act of regeneration 
proceeding from God, we haye also the high des- 
tination of the Christian, which the Apostle gives 
so significantly and deeply in εἰς τὸ εἶναι κ. τ. A. 
And that which God has done to him, is now in 
the following verses made the foundation of that 
which the Christian on his part has to do: by 
which what we have said under 3, and 4, receives 
fresh confirmation. This passage is one to be 
remembered, when we wish to know what the 
Apostle understands by the νόμος τέλειος (i. 25; ii. 
12) and what he means, when (ii. 14, etc.) he de- 
duces δικαιοῦσθαι from the works of faith. As 
regards the dogmatical use, which we make of 
this passage, wishing to show that regeneration 
is brought about by the word, as distinguished 
from the Sacrament of Baptism (Tit. iii. 5-7), we 
may remark, that seeing that λόγος ἀληθείας des- 
ignates the Gospel, as a whole, without any re- 
spect to such distinction, nothing regarding it 
can be gathered from this passage. The word 
of the Lord constitutes, we know, the force of the 
Sacrament also. ‘Accedit verbum ad elementum et 
fit Sacramentum.” And it is meant to be in 
ferred that the readers of this Epistle were πού 
baptized.””—M.]. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


It is impossible te pursue the course of life 
while we regard God in any way the cause of 
sin.—The attempt of charging God with the guilt 
of one’s transgression: 1, The traces of this per- 
verseness: a, inthe Jewish world, b, in the heathen 
world, ο, in the Christian world. 2. The springs 
of this perverseness; a, in a darkened under- 
standing, ὁ, in a proud heart, ¢, in a sinful will. 


CHAP. I. 13-18. 


59 


a 


8, The sad consequences of this perverseness ; 
by it a, God is insulted, b, our brother offended, 
c, and our own sanctification and salvation op- 
posed.—God in opposition to moral evil.—The 
ethical excellency of the Christian conception of 
God, also a proof of its heavenly origin.—No ex- 
cuse for sin, cf. Gen. iii. 12; Jno. xv. 22.—The 
history of the development of sin in every indi- 
vidual man: 1, beginning, 2, progress, 3, end.— 
How very different sin appears a posteriori from 
what it appears a priori.Sin should never be 
contemplated in the light of speculative under- 
standing only, but always in the light of con- 
science, the Bible and experience.—The erring 
Christian also should still be addressed as a be- 
loved brother.—Error manifold, truth only one.— 
The errors of men in morals are mainly the effect 
of their not looking up sufficiently to the Father 
of light.—The riches of God: 1, all good lights 
come from Him; 2, only good gifts come from 
Him.—God cannot be tempted to evil but He is 
never supplicated in vain for good.—The exalta- 
tion of the Creator above the most exalted work 
of His hands.—The constant alternation in the 
natural world contrasted with the immutable 
order in the moral world.—The immutability of 
the Father of lights viewed 1, on its heart-stirring 
and consoling side, but also 2, on its solemnly- 
admonishing and warning side.—The miracles 
of regeneration: 1, God has begotten us, 2, ac- 
cording to His free decree, 8, by the word of 
truth, 4, that we should be ete.—On the whole 
lesson y. 13-18. Sin not God’s fault but solely 
our own, a truth, 1, which man is only too prone 
to forget (v. 13), 2, which confirms the history 
of the development of sin (vv. 14, 15), 3, which a 
glance at the being of God (vv. 16, 17) and at 
the work of God (vy. 18), removes beyond all 
doubt.—On the conclusion: ‘‘ Do not err,” v. 16. 
“Do not err,” how James here cautions us 
against a threefold error: 1, Do not err, ye who 
expect the highest good from beneath (the earth): 
all good giving is from above, 2, Do not err, ye 
who dwelling on the goodness of God, forget His 
holiness: the Giver of all good is also the Father 
of lights. 8, Donot err, ye who think that His ho- 
liness in your case would cease to be just: with 
the Father of lights is neither variableness, nor a 
shadow of turning. 


SrarKE:—Man as long as he lives in time is 
liable to temptations.—Every man has a lust and 
bias peculiar to himself and carries the origin of 
all his temptations within himself, Jno. xii. 6. 


QuESNEL:—We ourselves are our own worst 
enemies by our own lusts, Prov. xv. 27.—Man 
becomes gradually sinful.—Whatever we receive 
from above should take us back from below up- 
ward to God.—The rivers of God’s grace flow 
from on high’ into the deep valleys; the lower 
the heart, the more gentle the supply [influx 
the flow of God’s grace into the heart.—M. ].— 
If God is the Father of light, then sin cannot be 
His child. For what communion has light with 
darkness? 2 Cor. vi. 14.—If believers are God- 
begotten, they are of Divine descent [a Divine 
race—M.]. O, what high nobility! 

Luruer :—The lying word of the serpent has 
corrupted us but the true word of God makes us 
good again, Jno. xvii. 17. 


Srirr :—Nothing good comes from below; not 
even outward help for outward need (cf. Sir. 38, 
8, 9).—Good gifts in general are of no avail 
without the perfect gift, which restores to us 
light and life in a regeneration (out of) God. 

HeEvUBNER :—Being tempted refers not only to 
solicitations to apostasy from Christianity, from 
religion by adversities, but James manifestly 
speaks of sin in general.—Desire remains barren 
without the will.—All the woe of mankind is 
the fruit of sin.—Deriving evil from the Being 
of God is much worse than Parseeism with its 
dualism.— 

PorusszKy:—The nature of temptation [ἡ. 6. its 
essence—M. |, 1, lies not in the outward assault 
but rather within ourselves; 2, it should not be 
combated from without but from within.—Of the 
holy power needed for pious deeds: 1, of the 
necessity of this power; 2, of its communication. 

[V. 18. God permits and overrules the tempta- 
tion, but is not the Author of it.—God is neither 
temptable by evil things, nor versed in eyil 
things.—Lust, the enchantress and temptress, ef. 
Prov. vil. 5-27. See also the admirable portrait 
of the gossamer approaches of sin in Southey’s 
Thalaba, Book 8, 23-29.—God, the Father of 
lights is not the Author of evil; contrast ‘‘ Father 
of lights” and ‘Prince of darkness.” — 

Vy. 14, 15. The way to death. 1. Man drawn 
by his evil inclinations out of the safe asylum of 
virtue (ἐξελκόμενος); 2. entrapped by the fasci- 
nations of vice and evil (δελεαζόμενος) ; 8. into 
the commission of voluntary sin (ἐπιθυμία συλλα- 
βοῦσα τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν), and 4. ripening in sin, 
hurried to ruin (ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα 
ἀποκύει θάνατον) .---- 

V. 16. The duty of Christian pastors to cau- 
tion their flocks against error.— 

V.17. God the Author of good—he cannot 
therefore be the Author of Evil.—God is the per- 
ennial fountain, whence gush in perpetual 
streams good gifts and perfect gifts.—Good living 
denotes not only temporal blessings but also spi- 
ritual—it comprehends the bestowal of every 
blessing accorded us by the munificence of our 
heavenly Father in this our imperfect state of 
existence; while perfect gifts are those eternal 
possessions laid up for us in heaven, of which 
regeneration is the beginning and pledge.—God is 
the Father of the lights, not only of heaven, not 
only of the lights of reason, wisdom, conscience, 
truth, inspiration and prophecy, but also the 
Father of the children of light (Luke xvi. 8; Jno. 
xii, 86; Eph. v. 8; cf. also Matth. v. 14, 16).— 
M. ]. 

aden eae γ. 13.—St. James delivers a 
caution against errors, which afterwards showed 
themselves in the heresies of Apelles, Hermogenes, 
Valentinus, Marcion and the Manichsans, which 
represented God as the Author of evil, or as subject 
to evil, and unable to resist. and overcome it.— 
y. 14. Concupiscence is the womb of sin, and the 
offspring of sin is death. All these are evil and 
none of these are from God, who is the Author 
of all good.—M. ]. 

[Dipymus: v. 16.—The ministry of good is di- 
rectly and indirectly from God; but evil comes 
only per accidens, indirectly and mediately, for 
the correction of man, who is chastened by suf- 
fering.—M. ]. 


60 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


[Worpsworru: y. 18.—Here is an Apostolic 
protest against two errors prevalent among the 
Jews, 1. that men are what they are either by 
necessity, as the Pharisees held, or else 2, as the 
Sadducees taught, by the unaided action of their 
own will, independently of Divine grace. See 


Maimonides in his Preface to Pirke Aboth, and 


Josephus Ant. xiii. 5,9; xviii. 1,3. Bp. Bull, 
Harm. Apost. Diss. 2, ch. 15. Thus they dis- 
paraged the dignity of the Divine Will. 

[Man in Christ is the wave-sheaf of the har- 
vest. See 1 Cor. xv. 20-23—M.]. § - 

[RapsinicaL: v. 13.—This is the custom of evil 
concupiscence; to-day it saith, Do this; to-mor- 
row, worship an idol. The man goes and wor- 
ships. Again it saith, be angry.—Evil concu- 
piscence is, at the beginning, like the thread of 
a spider’s web; afterward it is like a cart-rope. 
-μ.1. 

ieee y. 15.—The soul, which the Greek 
philosophers considered as the seat of the appe- 
tites and passions, is called by Philo τὸ ϑῆλυ, the 
female part of our nature; and the spirit, τὸ 
ἄῤῥεν, the male part. In allusion to this notion, 
James represents men’s Just as a harlot, who en- 
tices their understanding and will into its impure 
embraces and from that conjunction conceives sin. 
Sin being brought forth, immediately acts, and 
is nourished by frequent repetition, till at length 
‘it gains such strength that in its turn it begets 
death. This is the true genealogy of sin and 
death. Lust is the mother of sin and sin the mo- 
ther of death; and the sinner the parent of both.” 
—M.]. 

[ΕΣ Sanperson: v. 13.—St. James therefore 
concludes positively, that every man’s tempta- 
tion, if it take effect, is merely from his own 
lust. It is then our own act and deed, if we are 
Satan’s vassals: disclaim it we cannot; and 
whatsoever misery or mischief ensueth there- 
upon, we ought not to impute to any other than 
ourselves alone.—M. 1. 

[Asp. Secker: y. 14.—Temptation has no 
power, the great tempter himself has no power, 
but that of using persuasion. Forced we cannot 
be, so long as we are true to ourselves, our own 


consent must be our own giving: and without it 
the rest is nothing.—M. ]. 

[Dr. Jortin: y. 17.—The unchangeable nature 
of God suggests very powerful dissuasions from 
vice. The Scripture contains no decrees con- 
cerning the reprobation and salvation of parti- 
cular persons, without regard to their moral 
qualifications. But there is a law which de- 
clares that obstinate and impenitent vice shall 
end in destruction. This law is as eternal and 
unchangeable, as the nature of good and evil, or 
the nature and perfections of God. Heaven and 
earth shall pass away, but this decree shall not 
pass away: and therefore a fearful thing it is to 
fall into the hands of the everliving and immu- 
table God. Yet this unchangeable nature of our 
Creator, considered in another view, affords no 
less comfort and peace to the greatest offenders, 
if they will repent and turn to Him. Their 
offences cannot be greater than His mercy and 
goodness, which endures to all eternity, ready 
to receive those who by an effectual repentance 
and reformation, through the satisfaction of 
Christ, make themselves proper objects of His 
mercy.—M. ]. 

[Sermons and Sermon themes: 

vy. 13. Suarp, Asp.: How far God is concerned 
in temptations to sin. Works 6, 263. 

vv. 13, 14. Tittotson ΑΒΡ.: The sins of men 
not chargeable to God. 

vy. 138-15. Apology for Providence in sin. 

Simeon, Cu. Sin, the offspring of our own hearts. 
Works 20, 27. ‘ 

vy. 15. Saurin, La maniere d étudier la religion. 
Sermons 4, 1. 

vy. 16, 17. ΞΊΜΕΟΝ, Cu. 
of all good. Works 2, 82. 

γ. 17. Buarr, H. On the unchangeableness of 
the Divine Nature. Sermons 2, 85, 

vy. 18. CHarnock, STEPHEN, The instrument of 
regeneration. Works 5, 521. 

Haut, Ropert, The cause, agent and purpose of 
regeneration. Works 5, 186. 

DopprinGE, Puit., Address to the regenerate. 
Works 2, 536.—M. ]. 


God the only source 


IV. SECOND ADMONITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE SECOND 
FORM OF TEMPTATION—FANATICISM. 


CAUTION AGAINST YIELDING TO THE WRATH OF MAN (SEXUAL), WHICH THINKS IT- 
SELF COMPETENT TO ADMINISTER THE JUSTICE OF GOD BUT IS INCOMPETENT TO 
DO IT. THE INSTRUMENT OF DELIVERANCE AND PRESERVATION FROM THIS 
ZEAL: THE CULTURE OF INNER LIFE IN FAITH AND THE VERITABLE RELIGIOUS 
PROOF OF THIS FAITH IN ACTS OF MERCY. 


CuaprTerR I. 19-27. 


(V. 22-27. 


Epistle for 5th Sunday after Easter). 


19 Wherefore,! my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to Speak, slow 
20,21 to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh? not the righteousness of God. Wherefore 


CHAP. I. 19-27. 


61 


τ σα eee ———— eee 


lay apart all filthiness 


and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the 


22 engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and 


23 not hearers only,’ deceiving your own selves. 


For if any be a hearer of the word, 


24 and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he 
beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man 


25 he was. 


But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, 


he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this* man shall be blessed in 
26 his deed. [{6 any man among you® seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, 


27 but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion ¢s vain. 


Pure religion and undefiled 


before God’ and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their afflic- 
tion, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. 


Verse 19. ἴστε is the most authentic reading. A. B.C. Vulg. al. ὥ στε found in G. K. [Rec. L. Sin.] is evidently a 
correction designed to establish a clearer connection, which has however obscured the peculiar import 
of this section. De Wette and Wiesinger, indeed advocate the retention of ὥστε on internal grounds 
against Lachmann, Huther andal., but the internal grounds are also in favour of ἴστε and even Ti- 
schendort’s reidoption of the reading of the Text. Rec. cannot affect the question. We also read with 


A. déafteriare andxaé before ἔστω. 


Tischendorf now decidedty favours ὥστε; so does Bouman p. 


84 sqq. 
Renee πον however ..... ..-. also let every man etc. [ye know it ......... but let etc.—M.] 

Verse 20. Ξἐργάζεται Α. B. [0.3] Sin., Lachmann; κατεργάζεται Ο." G. K. al. Tisch. The former seems to pre- 
ponderate, but ἐργάζεται has here surely a peculiarly emphatic meaning. 

Lange: For the man’s [viv] wrath doth not accomplish [execute] etc. 

Verse 21. Lange: Wherefore, removing all filthiness and all out-flowing [communication of life] of malice [malignity ] 
acquire in gentleness the word implanted in [and among] you, which etc. 

Wherefore putting off all filthiness and superabundance of maliciousness, receive in meekness the innate 
Word, which ete.—M.] 

Verse 22. 3 μόνον beforeaxpoarat Rec. A.C. K.L. Theile; after B. Vulg. Alford.—M. ] 

Lange: But become ye doers ....... ..as those who ensnare themselves. [But become jye......... deceiving 
etc.—M. 

Verse 23. Lange: ra ΗΝ connor this man is like to a man who observes the countenance [image of appearance] of his 
birth [of his development-image, of his life-form, the momentary formation of his continual development] 
in a mirror. 

Because (ὃ τα) «..... .. this man is like to a man considering the face of his birth in a mirror—M.]. 

Verse 24. Lange: For he observed himself and went away and forthwith forgot of what manner he was. 

For he considered himself and is gone away ........- what he was like (ὁποῖος ἢ v, t. 6. how he looked in 
the mirror)—M.]. 

Verse 25. 4A. Β. 6. Sin. and al. omit οὗ ros before ἀκροατής, so Lachmann; Tischendorf following G. K. [and Rec. 
—M.] inserts it. The omission may have arisen from the supposition that the word was superfluous, its 
pregnant force haying been misapprehended. 

Lange: But he, who became absorbed in the completed law, that of liberty, and remained thus, who be- 
came not a hearer unto forgetting, but a doer of the work, the same shall be blessed in his doing. 

But he who looked into the perfect law, that (τὸ ν) of liberty, and perseveres doing so, being ......... in his 
doing—M.]. 

Verse 26. ὃ δὲ after εἰ, ἰρολγθὰ by Lachmann following C., has the most important Codd. against it. It weakens also 
the recapitulatory character of the sentence. 

6A.B.C.omitév ὑμῖν. 
Lange: If any man [among you] fancieth himself to be a religious man [one theocratically zealous of the 
honour of God] etc. 
German for religious man, “ Gottesdiener "=a servant of God, one observant of God’s outward service; re- 
ligion “ Gottesdienst””»=outward service of God.—M.] 
Verse 27. 77 before 0e@ recommended by A. B. C.* Sin. al. and Lachmann. This reading is also in consonance with 


the thought, the reference being to the God of the Christian revelation. 

Lange: A pure and unprofaned religion [outward service—M.] before the God and Father is this: to be 
careful of the orphans and widows in their tribulation [to have the oversight of them, and not to be en- 
grossed with politics], to preserve himself unspotted from the world. 


Se eeeeeeeresvecees 


Alford.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Analysis. Caution against the second form of 
temptation—fanatical, angry zeal. The clemency 
of the man who is called to be the child of God 
or who is already begotten, should be in comfor- 
mity to the clemency of God y. 19.—The wrath 
of man [sexual] is not adapted to the ministering 
of the righteousness of God, v. 20.—They were 
to purify themselves from this temptation, by ac- 
knowledging said sin as a pollution (not perad- 
venture as zeal for Judaistic purity) and as natu- 
ral maliciousness and putting it off, and on the 
other hand, by thoroughly appropriating with 
meekness the word of Christian truth unto the 
furthering of their salvation, vy. 21.—Such an 
appropriation of the word will be most readily 
accomplished by their becoming doers of the 


before our God and Father (τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ) etc.; ra pa—with, in the estimation of 


word and by ceasing to be mere hearers, v. 22- 
24.—The real doer of the word has two distin- 
guishing marks: he is absorbed with the eye of 
faith in the contemplation of the perfect law, the 
free law of Christian truth and proves his perse- 
verance in this contemplation by the full con- 
sistency of Christian activity (as described more 
particularly). By such full energy of life he 
attains the enjoyment of blissful life v. 25.— 
Whoever imagines that he is a real worshipper 
of God and a zealot for the honour of God and 
corrupts his heart in giving the reins (in fanati- 
cal zeal) to his tongue, his religious service is 
vain., But the counterpart, true worship of God 
corresponding to the true image-of-God-the- 
Father, is Christian care of the helpless members 
of the Church accompanied by a decided shun- 
ning of polluting worldly-mindedness. vv. 26, 


62 


The clemency which shuns fanaticism and con- 
forms to the clemency of the Father in heaven. 

Ver. 19. Know however, my beloved 
brethren.—The connection indicated by the 
reading ὥστε (see App. Crit.) deduces from the 
clemency of God the exhortation that the Chris- 
tian also should exhibit corresponding clemency. 
But that reading makes this verse dependent on 
what precedes, as if it were simply an applica- 
tion, which is not correct. On the contrary we 
have here the beginning of a new leading 
thought, viz.: the guarding of Christians against 
the temptation of fanatical zeal by fully yielding 
to the spirit of meekness and liberty in Christi- 
anity. Hence the reading ἔστε is also preferable 
on internal grounds. Huther’s observation is 
correct: ‘vy. 18, connects primarily with the 
exhortation to hear—and then with the further 
exhortation in vy. 22 to be not only hearers but 
doers of the word.” ‘But the hearing here in- 
sisted upon must evidence itself as decided, 
(according to Matth. xiii. 23) as a full and unre- 
served yielding to the word of truth and conse- 
quently as the foundation and not as the contrast 
of doing. Semler takes ἴστε as an Indicative; 
non ignoratis istud carmen Sir. y. 11, but apart 
from the difference in expression there and here, 
the indicative sense weakens without reason the 
energetical tone of the exhortation. Huther re- 
marks that ἴστε answers to the μὴ πλανᾶσθε v. 16, 
which view is further confirmed by the use of 
the same address: ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί here and 
there; cf. also ch. ii.5. [But it is not necessary 
to connect the ἔστε taken indicativelfwith the 
exhortation at all: it therefore cannot weaken 
its energetical tone, on the contrary it strength- 
ens it by its very abruptness. Adopting the in- 
dicative sense of ἔστε I connect it therefore with 
the preceding, as follows: Ye know it, my be- 
loved brethren, but let every man, etc.; or para- 
phrasing: Ye know that these things are so, but 
possessed of this very knowledge let every man, 
etc. ἴστε is used in this sense in Eph. νυ. 5; Heb. 
xii. 17.—M.]. 

Also let every man.—xai (see App. Crit.) 
indicates that the conduct of man should be in 
conformity to the conduct of God. It remains 
to be ascertained in what sense we are to take 
this sentence. Laurentius and al. make it a 
general direction; Gebser, Wiesinger and al. 
give it a distinct reference to “the word of 
truth;” Huther, Theile and al., say that the 
general direction had primarily the specific aim 
of inculeating upon Christians the right conduct 
also in respect of the word of truth. But all 
this hardly does full justice to the double anti- 
thesis in the words: slow to speak, slow to wrath. 
The Apostle indicates the point in which Christ 
and Christian religiousness should evidence it- 
self as humanity, but true humanity also as piety 
—even the centre of faith and humanity as con- 
trasted with inhuman and impious conduct. 
Hence the express declaration: πᾶς ἄνθρωπος. It 
is a fundamental law of humanity, which is here 
described by the antithesis ταχύς and βραδύς 
(found in Philo, but in no other place of the 
New Testament, and expressed by Riickert thus; 
“thou hast two ears and one mouth.’’)—Being 
swift to hear denotes entire readiness, constancy 
and thoughtfulness of hearing (Matth. xiii. 23) 
end shows that such real hearing contains the 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


germ of obedience to the truth, just as real 
‘tasting and seeing” involves the experience 
‘‘that the Lord is good.” Being slow to speak of 
course does not exclude all speaking but rash, 
immature, thoughtless and immoderate talking 
(λαλεῖν), especially dogmatical speaking ch. iii. 
1, although the expression is not confined to it 
(Pott and al.). The Apostle demands cautious, 
thoughtful speaking, a speaking flowing from an 
inward calling and therefore a weighty speaking. 
Being slow to wrath applies in like manner to anger, 
which is consequently not absolutely disallowed 
(as Hornejus has truly remarked), Eagerness 
in speaking by warmth leads one easily to eager- 
ness of passion [Alford: The quick speaker is 
the quick kindler.—M.]. Huther justly rejects 
the reference of this wrath to God (Calvin, Ben- 
gel, Gebser: ‘impatience towards God on ac- 
count of persecution”). For in that case James 
ought not to have allowed any slowness to wrath. 
Huther capitally explains this wrath of ‘‘ carnal 
zeal aiming at the mastering of our neighbour, 
the fruit of which is not εἰρήνη but ἀκαταστασία 
ch. iii. 16; the caution is directed against Chris- 
tians, who—as did the Pharisees in respect to 
the law—instead of using the Gospel for their 
own sanctification, were abusing it in gratifying 
their love of condemnation and quarrelsome- 
ness.”” Thus our exhortation in its particular 
direction is addressed not only to the Jewish 
Christians but to all the twelve tribes, whose 
ancestors in fanaticism, Simeon and Leyi (Gen. 
xxxiv.), disapproved by their father (ch. xxxiv. 
49), were afterwards mentioned as patterns 
worthy of imitation (Judith ix.). 

The wrath of man not a suitable organ of the 
righteousness of God. 

Ver. 20. For the wrath of man worketh 
not.—Our verse gives the reason of the pre- 
ceding one, but contrasts the two modes of con- 
duct, the right one there and the wrong one 
here. We attach importance to the distinction 
that in the former verse reference is made to the 
wrath of man in general and here to the wrath 
of man sexually. Thomas perceives in the ex- 
pression an antithesis between the man and the 
child, Bengel one between man and woman but 
neither does conform to or satisfy the historical 
significance of our expression. We agree with 
Huther that this sentence must not be referred 
to the state of being righteous before God (Geb- 
ser, Grashof), and with Wiesinger that it must 
not be to the personal doing of men which is 
well-pleasing to God (so Huther following Lu- 
ther—dixatoobvy—=r6 δίκαιον a meaning of fre- 
quent occurrence in both Testaments); but we 
cannot stop with Wiesinger at the interpretation 
of Hofmann that ‘‘the wrath (zeal) of man is un- 
able to effect in others (ἰ. e., as a zeal of conver- 
sion) the righteousness of God, 7. e., that ‘‘state 
of being righteous” [ Rechtsbeschaffenheit*], which 
God begets by this word of truth. For James 
evidently has respect to the fanatical delusion of 
wrath, which imagines to adminisver and work 
out in the world the righteousness of God espe- 
cially with reference to unbelievers by passionate 
words and deeds, in that it only gives reality to 


*We consider this term, which through Hofmann has 
crept into theology, as an abortive improvement on the 
term “righteousness” (German: Rechtschaffenheit or Ge- 
rechtigkeit). 


CHAP. I. 19-27. 


63 


: 


its unamiable ebullitions. Such was specifically 

the Judaistic delusion, which begot Ebionism 
and the Jewish war and which also found after- 
wards its expression in Mohammedanism and 
even in the Christian crusades, in the ecclesias- 
tical persecutions of heretics and also in several 
fanatical heretics (Eudo de Stella, Thomas 
Miinzer, etc.). But that the subjects of this de- 
lusion at the same time believe that their wrath 
(zeal) is the true way of converting men, that 
thus they are doing a work well-pleasing to God 
and that thus they will become righteous before 
God are features which, although we cannot set 
them aside, must remain subordinate to the lead- 
ing idea of passionate ebullitions i majorem glo- 
riam Dei, i. e., here justitie Dei. Our translation 
would be more strongly expressed by the reading 
κατεργάζεται than by the better authenticated 
ἐργάζεται; but the latter taken in a pregnant 
sense, does also give the force of the former. 

Shunning the temptation to unholy and hypocriti- 
cal wrath (zeal) by means of true sanctification, ne- 
gatively and positively. 

Ver. 21. Wherefore removing etc.—James 
bidding his readers purify themselves from the 
false zeal for their imaginary Jewish purity 
sounds like an oxymoron; for it is just their 
kind of zeal for purity which he characterizes as 
impurity and their imaginary piety as inhuman 
maliciousness. But true purifying is to him 
sanctification, that is, it is on the one hand the 
result of a negation (putting off impurity, etc.), 
and on the other, the result of a positive act, 
viz., the full receiving of the word of truth. 
However the two acts do not absolutely succeed 
one another (remove and receive), but with the 
removing of impurity (take note of the Partici- 
ple) the real appropriating of the evangelical 
word of God is to take place. The negative ele- 
ment, however, has here aconditional precedence, 
repentance before faith (Mark i. 15); hence it is 
here subordinated by the Participle to the posi- 
tive element on which it depends (cf. Rom. xiii. 
12; Eph. iv. 22, 23). But the Participle must 
also be noted as enforcing constancy in purify- 
ing.—d7obéuevoc we cannot translate “putting 
off,” for the reference is not figuratively to the 
putting off of filthy garments and to the opposite 
putting on of clean ones. The antithesis is: to 
remove, do away with; and to acquire, appro- 
priate (see Eph. iv. 25 and other passages). 

All filthiness (impurity).—/u7apia (in the 
New Testament only here) is doubtless a stronger 
expression than ἀκαθαρσία (Rom. vi. 19). It de- 
notes filth in a religious, theocratical sense like 
the filthy garment ch. ii. 2, like ῥύπος 1 Pet. iii. 
21, and ῥυπαρός and purapetew Rey. xxii. 11. To 
take the word ina general sense of moral unclean- 
mess (Calvin and al.), is inadequate; still less 
apposite are the specific renderings ‘‘avarice” 

Storr), ‘‘whoring” (Laurentius), ‘intemper- 
ance” (Heisen); but least of all its reduction to 
an attribute of the following κακία (Huther: 
putting off all uncleanness and abundance of 
malice; similarly Theile, Wiesinger and al.). It 
is sufficiently manifest that James sees in the 
carnal wrath (zeal) exerted in the interest of 
piety an antithesis, viz., impurity towards God 
(on the Atheistical in the heart of fanaticism see 
Nitzsch System, p. 89), and malice towards man. 


17; 2 Cor. viii. 2; ch. x. 15, ete.). 


All out-flowing (communication of life) of 
malice.—Huther: περισσεία, foreign to classical 
Greek, denotes in the New Testament ‘abun- 
dance,” really superabundance. The substan- 
tive and the corresponding verb περισσεύειν sig- 
nify in the New Testament the overflowing of a 
fulness of life, on the one hand as a development 
of life (a passing over into the life which con- 
tinues to procreate itself Matth. v. 20; Rom. xv. 
13, etc.), on the other hand as a communication 
of life (a passing over upon others, Rom. vy. 16, 
Here the 
word is evidently used in the latter sense. This 
follows also from the proper deéfinition of the 
term κακία, which here is not synonymous with 
πονηρία (1 Cor. v. 8)==vitiositas (Semler, Theile 
and al.), but according to the connection as the 
opposite of ἐν πραὕτητι, as Eph. iv. 81; Col. iii. 
8; Tit. iii.3; 1 Pet. 11. 1. A more specific idea, 
namely the inimical disposition towards one’s 
neighbour, which we express by ‘‘animosity” 
(Pott)! Huther.—(Wiesinger: ὀργή, Rosenmiiller: 
morositas; Meyer: malice). The overflowing of 
maliciousness is therefore the-malicious, hateful 
communication which passes from the fanatical 
wrath (zeal) of the propagandists on those whom 
they influence, according to Matth. xxiii. 15; 
Rom. ii. 24 and according to ecclesiastical his- 
tory, especially the history of the persecution of 
the Donatists, the Paulicians and the Camisards, 
etc. The definition of περισσεία = περίσσωμα 
(Bede); outgrowth, efflorescence (Schneckenbur- 
ger, de Wette):—the remnant surviving from 
former times (Gebser and al.—repiccevua), are 
thus set aside. [Alford joins ῥυπαρίαν with 
περισσείαν, as belonging to the Genitive κακίας 
and remarks that ‘‘it seems better forthe context, 
which concerns not the putting away of moral 
pollution of all kinds, but only of that kind, 
which belongs to κακία. And thus taken it will 
mean that κακία pollutes the soul and renders it 
unfit to receive the ἔμφυτος λόγος. It is very 
possible that the agricultural similitude in ἔμφυτος 
may have influenced the choice of both these 
words, purapia and περισσεία. The ground must 
be rid of all that pollutes and chokes it, be- 
fore the seed can sink in and come to maturity ; 
must be cleaned and cleared. περισσεία, if the 
above figures be allowed, is the rank growth, the 
abundant crop.”—M. ]. 

Receive (acquire, appropriate) in meek- 
ness.—ZJn meekness, in virtue of a meek dispo- 
sition, and not only with meekness. Meekness 
stands first in a pregnant sense. Jn meekness ac- 
quire, i. e. a meek demeanour, the opposite of 
wrathfulness, exhibited towards their brethren 
of different opinions is not only the condition, 
the vital element of the reception of the Gospel 
on the part of the Jews but also of the right ap- 
propriation of the same on the part of the Jewish 
Christians. Although the word denotes not di- 
rectly the docilis animus (Grotius, similarly Cal- 
vin and al.), yet the first condition and proof of 
the same. The reference, to be sure, is not to 
meekness as the fruit of the reception of the 
word (Schneckenburger), although the morally 
calm and gentle spirit engendered under the in- 
fluence of Christianity must be manifested in its 
highest perfection as its fruit. Want of meek- 


| ness destroys the power of the Gospel (Matth. 


64 


xviii. 23, etc.); the fourth and the seventeenth 
centuries prove this in a remarkable manner 
Receive. δέξασθε is emphatic and denotes the right 
attitude under right hearing with right doing. 
The rooting and growing of Paul is here strikingly 
described as a fuller making one’s own [appro- 
priation], because the Jewish-Christians were 
in great danger of again losing their own (pro- 
perty) and the Jews were on the point of losing 
their ancient title to it (cf. 1 Thess. i. 6). 

The word implanted in [and among] 
you.—This word is the objective Gospel (Huther: 
neither “innate or connate reason” [Oecumen- 
ius], nor the inner light of the mystics, for déyeo- 
θαι forbids that) as in v. 18, but in its subjective 
form of life, as the spiritual and vital principle in 
believers or as the seed of regeneration (1 Pet. 
i. 23). In this form it is implanted in believers 
but likewise implanted as a principle of conver- 
sion in the Jews as a whole; the latter meaning 
must not be not passed over. Hence the δέξασθε 
is relevant both with reference to the first recep- 
tion and the further appropriation of it. In con- 
sequence of the difficulty arising from the idea 
of receiving a word already implanted, Calvin 
made ἔμφυτος proleptic and explained it ‘ita sus- 
cipite, ut vere inseratur;’ and others similarly. 
But the word received subjectively does not 
thereby cease to be objective and to be received. 
[It is doubtful whether Lange’s solution of the 
difficulty will stand the ordeal of logical analysis. 
There is no such double sense in ἔμφυτος. Nor 
is the more clearly expressed exposition of Al- 
ford more satisfactory. He sees in ἔμφυτος an 
allusion to the parable of the sower and makes 
“the λόγος udvtoc—the word which has been 
sown, the word whose attribute and ἀρετή it is to 
be ἔμφυτος, and which is ἔμφυτος, awaiting your 
reception of it to spring up and take up your 
being into it and make you new plants.” His 
exposition is open to the same objection that 
something which is already sown in another soil 
can be implanted in us, if he understands by λόγος 
ἔμφυτος the word written or preached. Adhering 
however to the real meaning éudvtoc=innate, τὸ 
ἐν φύσει (Hesych.) we may remove all difficulty. 
Then the λόγος ἔμφυτος is—the innate Word, that 
is, the Word which has been born in our nature, 
i. e. Christ. So Wordsworth who produces much 
illustrative matter of the use of ἔμφυτος and thus 
sums up the whole: While it is true, that Christ 
by his Incarnation is properly said to be ἔμφυτος 
innate, born in us, and to be indeed Hmmanuel, 
God with us, God manifest in our flesh, God dwell- 
ing forever in the nature of us all; or, if we 
adopt the other sense of ἔμφυτος, while it is true, 
that Christ is indeed grafted in us as our Netzer 
or Branch (see Matth. ii. 23), yet will not this 
avail for our salvation, unless we receive Him by 
faith. We must be planted in Him and He in us 
by Baptism (Gal. 111. 27), we must dwell in Him 
and He in us, by actual and habitual communion 
with Him in the Holy Eucharist, we must abide 
and bring forth fruit in Him, by fervent love and 
hearty obedience. Christ, who is the Branch 
(Zech. vi. 12), is engrafted on the stock of our 
nature; but ascion grafted ona tree will not 
grow unless it is received and take root in the 
stock; so His Incarnation will profit us nothing, 
unless we receive Him in our hearts and drink 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


in the sap of His grace and transfuse the life- 
blood of our wills into Him, and grow and 
coalesce with Him and bring forth fruit in Him.” 
—M.]. 

Which is able to save your souls.—The 
idea of individual salyation is allied here with 
that of the national deliverance of the Israelites 
as in Jno. x. 28. Hence stress is here laid not 
only on the salvation of the soul but also on the 
salvation of the life and τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν is stronger 
than simply ὑμᾶς. [Alford says: “It is the ψυχῆ 
which carries the personality of the man; which 
is between the πνεῦμα drawing it upwards and 
the σάρξ drawing it downwards; and is saved or 
lost, passes into life or death, according to the 
choice between these two. And the λόγος ἔμφυτος, 
working through the πνεῦμα and by the Divine 
πνεῦμα, is ἃ spiritual agency, able to save the 
ψυχή." --Μ.1. It is able (cf. Rom. i. 16, δύναμις 
θεοῦ), but you are unable, incompetent for the 
carrying out of your judaistic plans of salvation. 
[Calvin: ‘* Magnificum celestis doctrine encomium, 
quod certam ex ea salutem consequimur. Est autem 
additum, ut sermonem illum instar thesauri incom- 
parabilis et expetere et amare et magnificare discamus. 
Est ergo acris ad castigandam nostram ignaviam 
stimulus, sermonem cui solemus tam negligenter aures 
prebere, salutis nostre esse causam. Tametsi non 
in hune finem servandi vis sermoni adscribitur quasi 
aut salus in externo vocis sonitu inclusa foret, aut 
servandi munus Deo ablatum alio transferretur. 
Nam de sermone tractat Jacobus qui fide in corda 
hominum penetravit: et tantum indicat, Deum salutis 
auctorem evangelio suo eam peragere.”—M. ]. 


But you will really appropriate the word by be- 
coming doers of the word and by ceasing to remain 
hearers only, vv. 22-24. 


Ver. 22. But become ye doers of the 
word.—yivecte—=be ye (Huther against Wiesin- 
ger, Theile and al.) who render=decome ye. 
Huther refers to Matth. vi. 16; x, 16 and other 
passages. We take it with Wiesinger, of course 
not in the sense of Semler, as if the word indi- 
cated perpetuam successionem horum exercitiorum, 
but in the sense of a perfect development of their 
Christian life. This demand on the Jewish 
Christians and the Jews was the cause of the 
martyrdom of Simon, the brother of James under 
the reign of Trajan; it was also the cause of the 
early martyrdom of James, not long after he 
wrote this Epistle, and this is just his idea of the 
deed, the doing and the work, as it here for the 
first time takes a distinct shape: you must be- 
come wholly consistent Christians, if Christianity 
is to effect your salvation. As the warning 
against apostasy forms the negative side of his 
Epistle, so this exhortation to consistency consti- 
tutes its positive side. For the word is more 
clearly defined in vy. 18, 21 asthe Gospel. They 
must become doers of the same in respect of its 
organic unity: this cannot be done by isolated 
acts, but only by one general act of practical 
life. Cf. ch. iv. 11; Rom. ii. 18. The ποιητής, 
who as such is the real ἀκροατῆς, is contrasted 
with the μόνον ἀκροατής. To the theocracy in its 
practical direction the ἀκροατῆς as such is insuffi- 
cient, while the Greek school understood by 
ἀκροατῆς per se a praiseworthy hearer. Cf. Matth. 
vii. 21; Luke xi. 28; Jno. xiii. 17. 


CHAP. I. 19-27. 


65 


As those who ensnare themselves,—See 
v. 26; Col. 11. 4; Gal. vi. ὃ; 1 Jno. i. 8; παρα- 
λογίζεσθαι----ἰο reckon beyond the mark, to reason 
falsely, to use fallacies,—in its practical tendency 
becomes deceiving, cheating and ensnaring by 
fallacies. Thus the ‘‘hearer only” deceives and 
ensnares himself. Huther refers παραλογιζομένοι 
to γίνεσθε in opposition to Gebser and Schnecken- 
burger who connect it with ἀκροαταί; but the 
latter are right, because the imaginary merit of 
hearing is the fallacy whereby they deceive them- 
selves and thus properly ensnare themselves. 

Ver. 23. For [because] if any is a hearer. 
—Demonstration of the preceding by means of 
a simile, which is not, however, a mere figure. 

Is like to.—The οὗτος emphatically repeated. 

A man.—There must be some good reason for 
the recurrence of the specific man (sexual) and 
not only of man in general. Huther ought, not 
to have despatched as curious the exposition [of 
Paes—M.] ‘‘viri obiter tantum solent specula i- 
tueri” [muliebri autem est curiose se ad speculum 
componere.—M.]. The exposition of the word 
ἀνήρ is connected with that of κατανοεῖν which 
according to Rosenmiiller, Pott and al. is here 
used in the secondary sense of hasty observation, 
but is disputed by Wiesinger and Huther. Now 
it is correct that in Luke xii. 24, 27; Acts vil. 
31, 32; xi. 6, the word denotes attentive contem- 
plation or consideration. Primarily it signifies 
simply, to observe, perceive, contemplate, under- 
stand, and if the expression is opposed, as is the 
case here, by the more important contemplation 
παρακύπτειν, and we have in narrative form the 
statement, that the man observed himself, went 
away and forthwith forgot etc., the reference is 
only to a somewhat imperfect, momentarily- 
sufficient self-contemplating, such as before the 
mirror is rather peculiar to man than to woman. 
It is moreover to be borne in mind that the ideas 
“to hear the word,” and ‘to contemplate oneself 
in a mirror” do not exactly coincide; it is only 
in the moment of a knowledge of oneself, of an 
incipient repentance that the word, which per se 
however is a mirror throughout, becomes efficient 
as a mirror. The countenance or πρόσωπον, al- 
though it need not denote the whole figure (so 
Pott and Sckneckenburger), is not necessarily 
confined to the face (so Huther); the addition 
τῆς γενέσεως renders the word more expressive. 
Γένεσις denotes according to Wiesinger and Hu- 
ther only the sphere of sensuous perception as 
distinguished from the ethical sphere, the face, 
such as a man has by natural birth. That is, 
James is again made to remind his readers that 
he only refers to a figure. Weconsider such an 
interposed explanation of the figure here also 
not only superfluous but inappropriate to sym- 
bolical diction. For what is the real meaning 
of τροχὸς τῆς γενέσεως ch. 111. 6? According to 
Wiesinger, to be sure, ‘‘the wheel revolving from 
a man’s birth;” but that would be an unintelli- 
gible expression and the exposition of Grotius 
and al. ‘‘cursus nature” has more in its favour. 
For life is also a genesis in a higher degree, and 
the fluctuating πρόσωπον is just the signature of 
the stages and states through which this genesis 
runs. This would also enable us to fix the refer- 
ence of αὐτοῦ here to γένεσις (Huther), as opposed 
to its reference to the general idea (Wiesinger). 


The Jews, as Jewish-Christians, for a while 
attained self-knowledge, in that they saw [knew, 
recognized—M. | themselves in the mirror of the 
Gospel according to their national and individual 
course of development, and thus they saw also 
the maculas of this development and appearance, 
hence the allusion to this circumstance (Wolf) 
must not be rejected with Huther. In a more 
general sense, πρόσωπον etc., can neither denote 
the natural corruption of man per se (Pott), nor 
the ideal form of the new man (Wiesinger). To 
stop at the figure itself (with Huther) would be 
tantamount to making the figure unmeaning. 
But it simply signifies the image of the inner man’s 
appearance as to his sinful condition modified 
now this way, now that way by his actual con- 
duct. On the mirrors of the ancients see the 
respective article in Winer. 

Ver, 24. For he observed himself.—The 
narrative form represents as in y. 11, an inci- 
dent quickly accomplished in the rapid succes- 
sion of the fleeting stages of its brief duration. 
The εὐθέως ἐπελάθετο is the most important point, 
as Huther remarks, but each separate stage has 
a meaning of its own. The stage of self-know- 
ledge in the mirror of the word, believing hear- 
ing, is followed by speedy departing, the avert- 
ing of the mind from the objective fulness and 
depth of the word (not only from what had been 
heard subjectively, as Huther explains); the de- 
parting is attended by the forgetting of the mir- 
ror-image, 7. ¢., the loss of self-knowledge con- 
scious of the necessity of salvation which would 
have impelled the man to the consequence of 
Christian renovation of life. The loss accruing 
from such a course, is referred to by James in vy. 
26, but especially in ch. v. [The Perfect 
ἀπελήλυθεν standing between the Aorists κατενόη- 
σεν and ἐπελάθετο is striking and imports that the 
departing denotes a permanent neglect and disuse 
of the mirror.—M. ]. 

The real doer of the word according to his marks 
of distinction: his being absorbed in the contempla- 


| tion of the free-making word, his constancy, the 


blessedness. 

Ver. 25. But he who became absorbed. 
—The pure antithesis of the former figure. Hu- 
ther: ““παρακύψας corresponds with κατενόησεν, 
παραμείνας with ἀπελήλυθεν, and οὐκ ἀκροατὴς 
ἐπιλησμονῆς with ἐπελάθετο. The Participles 
have the effect of strengthening the already 
strong expressions, especially in the Aorist, while 
taken together they indicate: γενόμενος, that it is 
only by constancy that a man becomes a real doer 
of the word. This passage must not be construed 
as if James wanted to distinguish the doing of 
the word as something separate from the looking 
into and abiding in it. The παρακύψας and 
παραμείνας, as such, is ποιητὴς ἔργου γενόμενος. 
This has an important bearing on the right un- 
derstanding of the passage and is also very— 
Pauline. Constant looking into the word of sal- 
vation by faith is preéminently the doing which is 
followed by outward proof. This construction 
therefore must not be altered by resolving yevd- 
μενος into γίνεται (Pott), or by saying with Wie- 
singer that right hearing and appropriating leads 
to doing and (thereby) to the blessedness of do- 
ing. Even Huther, who rejects Wiesinger’s ex- 
position, does not strictly adhere to the full energy 


66 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


of the idea, for he says that the doing of the law 
is the necessary consequence of persevering 
looking into’ the same; although prominence 
must be given to the fact that he characterizes 
the’ consequence as necessary.—Ilapaxirtew to 
stoop aside, to stoop over a thing in order to ex- 
amine it closely (Luke xxiv. 12; Jno. xx. 5, 11; 
1 Pet. i. 12); to sink into it, to be absorbed in its 
contemplation. Schneckenburger thinks: per- 
haps ad imaginem speculi humi aut mense impositi 
adaptatum. But this is not the most fitting way 
tolookintoa mirror. The remaining, persevering 
in it, Wiesinger explains as appropriating. But 
it is just the remaining in the yielding oneself to 
the object by contemplating it, whereby the ap- 
propriating of it is effected. [One of the best 
illustrations of the force of παρακύψας is given by 
Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, p. 15, note: ‘It sig- 
nifies the incurvation or bending of the body in 
the act of looking down into; as, for instance, in 
the endeavour to see the reflected image of a star 
in the water at the bottom of a well. A more 
happy and forcible word could not have been 
chosen to express the nature and ultimate object 
of reflection and to enforce the necessity of it, in 
order to discover the living fountain and spring- 
head of the evidence of the Christian faith in the 
believer himself, and at the same time to point 
out the seat and region where alone it is to be 
found. Quantum sumus scimus. That which we 
find within ourselves, which is more than our- 
selves, and yet the ground of whatever is good 
and permanent therein, is the substance and life 
of all other knowledge.” —M. ]. 

Into the completed law.—We translate 
completed because of the weighty adjective τέλειος, 
which here again makes prominent the N. T. 
completion of the O. T. (cf. the τέλειοι and the 
ἔργον τέλειον v. 4, and the ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα, 
y. 7; the Sermon on the Mount, the πληροῦν Matth. 
ii., etc.). It is not therefore the lex naturalis 
(Schulthess), or in general the λόγος ἀληθείας, in- 
asmuch as it is the means of regeneration and the 
norm of the new life (Wiesinger, Huther: the 
norm of the new life), or on the one hand the O. 
T. law as simply perfect, or on the other the Gos- 
pel in a general sense; but it is the Gospel con- 
ceived as that completion of the law which trans- 
forms the outward, enslaving law into a new 
principle of life communicating itself to the inner 
man and absolutely liberating him. And just as 
the expressions of Paul: the law of the Spirit 
(Rom. viii. 2), the law of faith (Rom. iii. 27), 
always contain an oxymoron alluding to the 
higher unity of the antithesis: law and spirit, 
etc., so likewise in the expressions of James: the 
perfect law, the law of libert¥, although an imi- 
tation of Pauline modes of expression is out of 
the question (Kern), The law as law made men 
servants (slaves); in its N. T. completion it 
makes them free. In the same sense it is also 
called the νόμος βασιλικός which is fulfilled by 
love (ch. ii. 8), and again the law of liberty (vy. 
12). The passages of the Old Testament, which 
speak of the glory of the law (Deut. xxxiii. 2, 3), 
or of its sweetness (Ps. xix. 8), denote the pro- 
phetical transition from the Sinaitical standpoint 
to the Evangelical, which was decidedly foretold 
by the prophets (Jer. xxxi. 83). Those who at- 
tribute to James an Ebionite glorification of the 


law, put him back behind Jeremiah or rather 
remove him even out of the Old Testament. But 
James had special reasons for calling the Gospel 
a law of (liberating) liberty inasmuch as his 
people were tempted to seek in their O. T. zeal 
for the law the means of chiliastico-revolu- 
tionary liberation (cf. Jno. viii. 82, etc.). The 
Gospel is moreover a law of liberty in that it as- 
serts, along with the Christian’s liberty of faith, 
the liberty of conscience of those of a different 
mind and in this form also breaks the fetters of 
fanaticism. 

Not a hearer unto forgetting.—Properly 
a hearer of forgetfulness (ἐπιλησμονῆς, ἅπαξ Hey. 
in the N. T.), stronger than a forgetful hearer. 
The antithesis ποιητὴς ἔργου brings out the idea 
that forgetfulness was, as it were, the object of 
hearing (‘‘in futuram oblivionem’’). The expres- 
sion ‘doer of the work” (as follows from the 
construction as stated above) cannot signify here 
a work-activity separated from, or only clearly 
distinguished from faith, but it denotes the per- 
severance of the life of faith, which owing to its 
oneness of energy leads of its own accord to a 
consistent exhibition of corresponding outward 
deeds. 

The same shall be blessed.—See the beati- 
tude y. 12. 

In his doing,—(zoiyovc in the N. T. ἅπαξ λε- 
γόμ., occurs only, besides here, in Sir. xix. 20), 
not in his deed. In the ever diligent (efficient) 
energy which is the soul of his deeds. Schneck- 
enburger: ‘ut ipsa actio sit beatitudo.”—The 
striving spiritual life-motion or the doing becomes 
a festive spiritual life-motion, perfect joy. This 
factual becoming blessed lies according to cir- 
cumstances in confession, and Rom. x. 9, 10 ex- 
hibits a near affinity with this passage. It is 
noteworthy that Paul also in that passage was 
particularly referring to Jewish Christians and 
that James above all things felt anxious that the 
Jews should confess Christ and that the Jewish 
Christians should make full and common cause 
with their Gentile brethren. 

False and true religious service or zeal for religion 
and the glory of God. vv. 26, 27. 

Ver. 26. If any man fancieth himself.— 
Aoxeiv denotes primarily to suppose with refer- 
ence to appearance and without any higher 
ground of certainty (Matth. xxiv. 44; hence 1 
Cor. vii. 40, an expression of modesty), hence ac 
cording to the connection also to imagine erro- 
neously (Matth. vi. 7) or as here to be spiritu- 
ally conceited, [i. e., the man thinks, fancies that 
he is religious.—M. ]. 

To be a religious man.—Op7oxoc is peculiar 
to James. The sense of the adjective is clear 
from Acts xxvi. 5and Col. ii. 18. James has formed 
the adjective in a masterly manner: one who 
plumes himself (seeks his being in) on his pre- 
tended serving of God. The word certainly im- 
plies the exhibition of a presumed εὐσέβεια in ex- 
ternal acts of religious worship (Huther), not 
exclusively however in the outward observance 
of religion, but in the permanent soldier- or 
knight-service for the glory of God. So the 
Jews supposed that they were the servants of God 
among the nations (Rom. ii. 17), so did the Mo.. 
hammedans and Crusaders at a later period and 
so the Jesuits suppose now. But at that time the 


CHAP. I. 19-27. 


67 


Jewish Christians, conceited of their God-serving, 
in various ways separated themselves from in- 
tercourse with Gentile Christians and in prepa- 
ring for the Jewish war, the Jews supposed they 
were making ready for ‘the glory of God.” 
[There is no one word in English which gives 
the exact meaning of ϑρῆσκος and ϑρησκεία. The 
words religious and religion at one time were used 
in the sense of outward ceremonial worship. An 
example from Milton and another from the Homi- 
lies may prove serviceable. Some of the heathen 
idolatries Milton characterizes as being 


‘adorned 
With gay religions full of pomp and gold.” 
Par. Lost. 61. 


‘Images used for no religion, or superstition 
rather, we mean of none worshipped, nor in 
danger to be worshipped of any, may be suf- 
fered.” Homily against Peril of Idolatry. See 
Trench, Synonymns of the NV. T., p. 233. A propos 
of this θρησκεία, Coleridge (Aids to Reflection, p. 
14) has these beautiful remarks: ‘‘The outward 
service of ancient religion, the rites, ceremonies 
and ceremonial vestments of the old law, had 
morality for their substance. They were the 
letter, of which morality was the spirit: the en- 
igma, of which morality was the meaning. But 
morality itself is the service and ceremonial 
(cultus exterior, θρησκεία) of the Christian religion. 
The scheme of truth and grace that became 
(éyévero) through Jesus Christ, the faith that 
looks down into the perfect law of liberty, has 
light for its garment: its very robe is righteousness.” 

Not bridling his tongue.—Not exempli causa 
(Rosenmiiller); nor must we with the majority 
of commentators resolve the Participle into ‘*al- 
though,” as Huther rightly remarks, adding: 
“‘James wants to censure those to whom zeal in 
talking was a sign of Upyoxeia.”” Thatis: those 
who by their fanatical zeal wanted to make good 
their pretensions of being the true soldiers of 
God. Χαλιναγωγεῖν, an expression found only in 
profane authors of the later period has been ad- 
ded by James to the fund of N. T. language (ef. 
Acts. iii. 2). 

But deceiving his heart.— Ararav καρδίαν 
αὐτοῦ is not exactly synonymous with παραλογί- 
ζεσϑαι ἑαυτόν (Huther), but denotes the same act 
of self-deception in a much higher degree. From 
the inward self-deceit of the thoughts protrudes 
false zeal and this has the effect that the zealot 
completely deceives his heart by false self-ex- 
citement (échauffement and bad consequences). 
The fanatic, by false exaggerations outwardly, 
at last makes himself inwardly a false and bad 
_ character. 

His religion (in the sense as defined above, 
-his zeal for the imaginary cause of God) is vain.— 
The blinding effects of his blinding passion yield 
no fruit of blessing to himself and others and 
pass as follies (Quixotisms in a higher style) from 
history into the judgment. 

Ver. 27. Religion pure and unprofaned. 
—The two adjectives are not strictly synonymous 
(Theile, Huther), nor do they simply denote the 
contrast of the outward and the inward (Wiesin- 
ger and al.). The expression ‘pure’ requires 
the Christian realization of the symbolical, theo- 


cratical purity; the sequel shows that it is to 
exhibit itself in the pious life of merciful love. 
The expression ‘‘unprofaned” (we supply this 
rendering in order to give more marked force 
to its literal meaning; the difference between 
ἀμίαντος and ἄσπιλος also musi be brought out in 
the translation) requires in the same sense real 
preservation of purity and purifying. The le- 
gal Jew became unclean by natural and pagan 
uncleannesses, the Christian must keep him- 
self clean and cleanse himself from worldly-mind- 
edness and vain worldly doings. Such a Di- 
vine service, therefore, denotes here the true 

life and work for the glory of God.— ΐ 

Before the God and Father.-—_This again 
lays stress on the Christian conception of God, 
as in vv. 5, 17 and παρὰ τῷ ϑεῷ refers not only 
to the Divine judgment (Huther) but more espe- 
cially to the attitude of the servant before the 
face and mouth of the commanding Lord. (Hu- 
ther rightly observes concerning καὶ πατρί ‘*God 
in virtue of His love can only consider pure that 
religious service which is the expression of 
love.” [Chrysostom in Catena says: οὐκ εἶπεν 
ἐὰν νηστεύητε, ὅμοιοι ἐστὲ τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν, οὐδὲν yap 
τούτων παρὰ ϑεὸν οὐδὲ ἐργάζεταί τι τούτων ὁ ϑεός" 
ἀλλὰ τί; γίνεσϑε οἰκτέρμονες ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν 
τοῖς οὐρανοῖς: τοῦτο ϑεοῦ ἔργον: ἐὰν οὖν τοῦτο μὴ 
ἔχῃς, τί ἔχεις; ἔλεον ϑέλω, φησί, καὶ οὐ ϑυσίαν. .-- 
Μ.]. 

τ be careful of the orphans and wi- 
dows.—We translate thus because it brings out 
the antithesis to be careful of worldly affairs, which 
James has doubtless before his mind’s eye, like 
Peter in his ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, 1 Pet. iv. 15. Al- 
though the verb is frequently applied to visiting 
the distressed (Huther: Matth. xxv. 36, 43; Jer. 
xxiii. 2 etc.), it has also in this form a wider 
meaning (Theile: the species pro genere). The 
wider sense: to be careful of, to care for, to pro- 
tect one, is directly brought out in Acts. xv. 14; 
Heb. ii. 6 and elsewhere; Philo calls ἐπίσκεψις 
providentia, ‘‘The ὀρφανοί are named first as 
those in want ofhelp, as in Deut. x. 18; Job 
xxix. 12, 13 οἷο. Huther. This Divine service 
answers to the fatherhood of God; those who 
engage in it do His work in love and compassion, 
because He is a Father of the orphans and a 
Judge (a Protector of the rights of) the widows, 
Ps. Ixyiii. 6 and other passages. Now according 
to the book of Tobit it was the ideal of a true 
Israelite to protect the distressed among the 
captives of his people and Tobit i. 6, 7 we read 
that it was an integral part of the religious ser- 
vice of Tobit that every third year he gave the 
tithe to the strangers, the widows and the fa- 
therless. In this manner the Israelite of the 
New Testament was called upon to help his poor 
people especially the distressed in their affliction. 
The state of affliction in its concrete form is most 
frequently and most touchingly exhibited in the 
distress of widows and orphans. In this direction 
we may have to seek the sense of keeping one- 
self unspotted from the world; and this probably 
explains the asyndeton of the two sentences (cf. 
Huther). They are not strictly codrdinate, but 
the second is the reverse or the sequence of the 
first, its pure antithesis. Hence ἄσπιλον comes 
emphatically first. Cf. 1 Pet. i. 19; 2 Pet. iii. 
14. The expression ought really to be resolved 


68 


into two ideas, firstly, to keep oneself from the 
world, secondly to keep oneself unspotted from 
the world, that is, from the world is connected 
with the two elements of the sentence: to keep 
oneself unspotted. The ethical idea of κόσμος is 
everywhere the personal totality of life converted 
into the Impersonal, 7. 6. mankind asto its ungodly 
bias. The peculiarity of this idea in James 
comes out more clearly in ch. iv. 4. What hea- 
thenism was to the Jew, the antithesis of the 
holy people, to which it might apostatize by 
spiritual idolatry, such was to the apostolical 
mind, the ungodly doing of the world, whether 
manifested in Judaistic visionariness or in a 
heathen form. Oecumenius’s idea of the δημώδης 
καὶ συρφετὸς ὄχλος, ὁ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιϑυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης 
αὑτοῦ φθειρόμενος was consequently not far from 
the image of the excited condition of the world, 
which was floating before the Apostle’s imagina- 
tion; but the Judaistic ὄχλος assumed a prouder 
and more spiritual shape. This specific reference, 
of course does not exclude the more general. 
[Alford: ‘* The whole earthly creation, separated 
from God and lying in the sin, which, whether 
considered as consisting in the men who serve 
it, or the enticements which it holds out to evil 
lust (ἐπεϑυμία) is to Christians a source of con- 
tinual defilement.’’—M. ] 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The purity of the moral teaching of James 
also is conclusive from what he says concerning 
wrath. James is far from holding a quietistic 
or ascetico-rigoristic view which did approve 
of all anger absolutely, as unworthy of man or 
the Christian. He recognizes with Christ (Matth. 
v. 22; Mark. iii. 5) and Paul (Eph. iv. 26) law- 
ful anger as opposed to unlawful. As in the 
case of the Master, so also in that of the disciple 
anger should be the extreme point of the flame, 
with which love strikes. But although anger is 
permitted up to a certain degree, it is neverthe- 
less restricted within fixed limits by the limiting 
direction βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν. One has only to look 
at the deplorable mischief that may be produced 
by excessive anger in order fully to justify the 
necessity and wisdom of this precept. Pecu- 
liarly Christian is the triplex officium, which in vy. 
19 is commanded in so brief and pithy a manner. 
The exhibition of such a frame of mind affords 
proof that the regeneration spoken of in vy, 18 is 
a reality. The natural man is the very opposite: 
he is slow to hear, swift to speak and swift to 
wrath. It is also note worthy that v. 19 con- 
tains properly the ¢ezt, the exposition and deve- 
lopment of which are treated of in the remainder 
of the Epistle. The exhortation to be swift to 
hear is expounded from y. 21—ch. ii. 26 with 
simultaneous reference toa fruitful hearing; the 
admonition to be slow to speak is emphatically 
urged in ch. iii. and that to be slow to wrath in 
ch. iv. and y. 

2. Because on the Israelite standpoint no justi- 
fication before God was possible without the ful- 
filling of the law, the chief demand of which is 
love, while wrath is the very expression of the 
most unbridled selfishness, there are no ideas 
more decidedly opposed to one another than ὀργὴ 
ἀνδρός and δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ. 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


 ——— —___———————E 


8. Slowness of hearing was, it would seem, an 
evil not peculiar to the first readers of this 
Epistle, but also common to others, and particu- 
larly to Jewish Christians. Cf. Heb. vy. 11; x. 
25. The emphatic urging of the opposite quality 
is therefore not superfluous. Here also the 
words of James echo the words of Christ. Luke 
xi. 28; Matth. vii. 24-27; xiii. 23. 

4, Real inward hearing is ever to receive anew 
the word, implanted and already extant within 
us as the seed of regeneration, which in an inex- 
haustible richness of forms is ever brought home 
to us as a new word of life. What would the 
preached word avail unless it had hidden points 
of contact in the hearts and consciences of Chris- 
tians? cf. 1 Thess. i. 6. The forgetful hearer, 
whom James describes in vy. 22—24 fully corre- 
sponds with the second class of men depicted by 
our Lord in the parable of the sower (Matth. 
xiii. 20, 21). 

5. James’ view of the connection of faith and 
hearing is identical with that of Paul. Rom. 
x. 14-17. 

6. The representation of the Gospel as ihe per- 
fect law of liberty is as correct as it is important. 
Paul, who contrasts generally the law and the 
Gospel, acknowledges a law of the spirit of life 
in Christ Jesus, Rom. viii. 2. This law is per- 
fect because it presents at once the most perfect 
and most judicious directory of the life of be- 
lievers; it is the law of liberty because the faith- 
ful practice of it leads men to true, moral liberty. 
Here the saying is fully valid legum servi sumus 
est liberi esse possimus. Cf. Jno. viii. 86; Matth. 
y. 17-20. 

7. Care must be had that James be not misun- 
derstood in the description of the pure and un- 
spotted religious service (v. 23), as if these words 
contained an exact definition of the inner side 
of true religious service in general. Any one some- 
what philanthropically inclined and at the same 
time keeping himself outwardly free from world- 
ly contamination is on that account far from be- 
ing entitled to say that in so doing he is practis- 
ing the pure and unspotted religious service in 
the sense of James. In order to prevent any 
possible misapprehension of his language we 
have to notice that he refers not indefinitely to 
the Divine service, but to a pure and unspotted 
service (ϑρησκεία without the Article) and states 
merely in a general way what is above all things 
essential to the being and efficacy of a practical 
religiousness in its outward manifestation. ‘As 
if one addicted to drink were to boast of his mor- 
ality and were to be told in reply that a moral 
man does not get drunk, it would not be the lat- 
ter’s purpose to represent thereby the sum-total 
of a Christian conversation.” Chrysostom. The 
great and principal condition is taken for granted, 
viz.: repentance and faith; besides, this exhorta- 
tion is also addressed to Christians already re- 
generate, v.18. James insists upon the duty we 
owe to our neighbour, who is here represented by 
widows and orphans as those most in want of 
help, and upon the duties we owe to ourselves 
by the practice of self-denial and vigilance. 
These two points reveal at the same time the true 
disposition toward God. Besides James does not 
say that the man who applies himself to the dis- 
charge of these duties shall be blessed dy this his 


CHAP. I. 19-27. 


69 


doing but that he shall have even here a taste of 
bliss in this his doing (ἐν τῇ ποιῆσει) so that this 
doing as such is to him the highest bliss. v. Ger- 
lach: ‘‘ In this doing of the law he will feel him- 
self truly blessed, as he must be esteemed blessed. 
To fulfil the commandments of God, to progress 
in holiness, is an ever-growing enjoyment of 
blessedness, granted more and more to the be- 
lievyer and the faithful already here on earth.” 

8. Widows and orphans so highly favoured 
even by the Mosaic law (Ex. xxii. 22-24 and else- 
where), are also emphatically protected by Chris- 
tian morality. The difference between the phi- 
lanthropy of the Church and that of a mere hu- 
manism. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Christians are called constantly to adopt the 
prayer of David, Ps. cxli. 3.—It is impossible 
that the bitter root of wrath can produce the 
sweet fruit of righteousness.—Difference between 
holy and unholy anger.—Jra furor brevis.—The 
causes and excuses of the frequent dulness of 
hearing.—The development of spiritual life ever 
conditioned by the use of the means of grace.— 
The preaching of the Gospel a constant watering 
of the seed of regeneration already planted in us. 
—What we have to lay aside and what we have 
to bring with us in order to serve God in public 
(i.e. make a public profession of religion).— 
Many hearers put rigorous demands on the 
preacher but hardly any on themselves; it ought 
to be the reverse.—True meeekness in the hear- 
ing of the word.—The Gospel a power of God 
unto salvation etc. Rom. i. 16.—The self-decep- 
tion of the hearer of the word who becomes not 
a doer, cf. Prov. xvi. 25; 1 Cor. iii. 18.—Three 
classes of men: 1, those who neither hear nor 
do the word; 2, those who hear it but do it not; 
3, those who both hear and do it.—Even Herod 
heard John the Baptist gladly and for his sake 
did many things, but not the one thing needful, 
Mark vi. 20.—The word of God a bright mirror 
which must be attentively looked into, would we 
attain true self-knowledge. The true hearer of 
the Gospel looks as carefully into the mirror as 
do the angels into the plan of salvation, 1 Pet. i. 
12.—The Gospel 1, a law; 2, a perfect law; 3, a 
perfect law of liberty.—The blessedness of the 
doer of the word, Ps, cxix. 1 etc.—The absolute 
incompatibility of the service of sins of the 
tongue with a truly religious life.—The Christian 
life a service of love.—Only that Divine service 
is the true, which is a Divine service before 
‘“‘God and the Father,” 1 Sam. xvi. 7.—The 
practice of the duties of love must be joined with 
conscientious watchfulness of ourselves.—The 
Christian’s relation to the world: 1, to its dis- 
tressed ones; 2, to its temptations.—The fruit of 
righteousness is a tree of life, Prov. xi. 30.—How 
eloquently James has recommended his instruc- 
tion concerning active fear of God by his own 
example.—(vy. 19-27). A direction for and 
eulogy of the right hearing of the Gospel. James 
urges us 1, to devout hearing (vv. 19, 20), 2, 
to meek receiving (v. 21), 3, to active practice 
(vv. 22-24), and 4, to constant searching of the 
word ( vv. 25-27).—(vv. 25-27) 1, What one en- 
joys (v. 25), 2, avoids (v. 26), and 3, practises in 


the way of active piety.—True Christianity the 
most practical matter in the world. 

Srarke:—Believers are more eager to learn 
than to teach, for the cause of regeneration 
makes us real hearers of the word. Jno. viii. 47. 

Luruer :—Blessed is the man whose mouth is 
in his heart and whose heart is notin his mouth; 
the one is wisdom, the other folly. 

Srarke:—He who along with other sins does 
not overcome his carnal anger, cannot enter into 
the Kingdom of God, Gal. v. 20, 21.—Sins are 
also in believers, who must more and more 
cleanse themselves from them, Heb. xii. 1. 

QuESNEL:—He only loves the word of God in 
truth, who performs it by love, 1 Jno. v. 3. 

Lane Op:—To deceive others is bad, to de- 
ceive oneself worse, and the latter is more com- 
mon than the first, Prov. xxiv. 8. 

SrarKe:—The word of God is here compared 
with a mirror not only on account of its intrinsic 
brightness and purity, but chiefly because of its 
use and benefit. For it not only shows us (ac- 
cording to the law) the detestable and sinful form 
of our souls which we derive from the first Adam 
and wherein alas, we resemble Satan, but it 
shows us also (according to the Gospel) the 
beauteous, glorious and lovely form which we 
may receive from Christ, the second Adam, and 
His Spirit by means of the new birth and wherein 
we resemble Him. 

QuEsNEL:—He that doeth not what he heareth, 
forgetteth more than he heareth and his latter 
end will be worse than the beginning, 2 Pet. ii. 
20, 22.—Blessed is the man who receives his own 
testimony against himself. 1 Cor. xi. 31. 

Srarke:—Fear not, believers, if you hear the 
Gospel called a law and that it enters as much 
and more into hearts of poor sinners with light- 
ning and thunder than the old law of Sinai; 
for it is a law of liberty. Such a liberty which 
is more valuable than all treasures, more pleas- 
ant than life itself and more precious than all the 
goods of the world; none know what it is worth 
but those who have lost it and those who have 
it, although they esteem it most highly, yet do 
they not esteem it according to its value, Gal. v. 
1-13.—Whoso truly serves God in the spirit, his 
tongue also is governed by the Spirit of God, Ps. 
xxxix. 2.—Many whose mouth is full of the 
praise of the truth and who are proud of their Di- 
vine service are their own worst deceivers and se- 
ducers, Rom. ii. 23.—Many a service is well-pleas- 
ing to God which is despised and even rejected 
by men, Acts xxiv. 14. 

CramMER:—Widows and orphans are privileged 
individuals before God.—He that keeps himself 
unspotted before the world, does the will of God 
and is greatly blessed, 2 Cor. vi, 17, 18. 

Vv. 16-21. Epistle for the 4th Sunday after 
Easter (Cantate). 

LurHEeR:—Because the Epistle of James ch. i. 
has been read from of old on this Sunday, being 
also good for instruction and exhortation, we will 
also retain it for those who would have it con- 
tinued and say something concerning it, lest it be 
thought we wanted to reject it, although the 
Epistle has not been written by an Apostle nor 
does set forth everywhere the manner and stamp 
of apostolical teaching nor quite conformable to 
pure doctrine. Therefore James concludes: 


70 


«Let every man be swift to hear, slow te speak, 
slow to wrath.”” That is: be taught, admonished 
by God’s word, reproved and comforted, be 
swift in these things; but be not fluent in speech, 
in murmuring, cursing and railing against God 
and man. Hereby he does not forbid us all 
speaking, reproving and being angry, if the com- 
mandment of God or necessity require us so to 
do, but that we for ourselves shall not rashly and 
vehemently engage in it, although we be irri- 
tated thereto—and the rather hearken to and 
suffer us to be taught by the word; which is the 
true and real word, which we should ever let 
govern and lead us, and from which should flow 
whatsoever we say, blame and rebuke. Hence it 
is said soon afterwards to receive the word with 
meekness, that we may not be angry if it reprove 
us, or murmur if we have to suffer somewhat for it. 

Hevusner:—Talkativeness the mark of a weak 
mind.—The word of God the best bridle for the 
government of the tongue and the affections.— 
Never act while thou art angry.—(vv. 16-21.) 
The Christian’s belief in the presiding control 
of an all-good God. 1. Nature and. reason, 2. 
Effects of this belief.—Self-deceit in the service 
of God. 

PorusszKy:—Of ungodly anger. 1. What is 
anger? 2. What does anger? 38. How is anger 
conquered? 

Covarp:—Contemplations on the precious gift 
of the Gospel. 

Kaprr:—Whereto we are impelled by the ab- 
solute perfection of God. 

Patmer:—Good works: 1, their inward origin 
(vy. 16-18), 2, their outward form (vy. 19-21). 

Sovcnon:—Receive the word daily. 

Sranpt:—What we may expect from God: 1, 
what He gives (vv. 16-18), 2, what He removes 
(vv. 19-21). . 

Vow Harvess:—Who walks in the right way 
to the end of life? 

Arnpt:—The sins of the tongue. 

Hersercer:—Like as a wagon runs in two 
ruts, like as a man stands on two legs unless he 
be a cripple, like as he consists of two parts, body 
and soul, so Christianity also runs in two parts, 
in faith and works. 1. God the good gives good 
gifts, 2, and expects good to be returned to Him. 

Lisco:—The fountain and the vessel of all 
good gifts.—Spring’s threefold address to us the 
children of God.—The holiness of God in its in- 
compatibility with human sin. 

Fucus:—The word of truth as the perfect gift 
of God. 

Vy. 22-27, Epistle for 5th Sunday after Easter 
(Rogate). 

Hevsner:—Other laws bind and are often 
burdensome to us: the law of God delivers us 
from the bands of sin.—Those, otherwise free 
from gross sins, yet sin with the tongue.—Sefish- 
ness turns even religion into an instrument of 
self-sufficiency.—All religion must be moral.— 
We should take to the necessitous not only our 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


gifts but ourselves. —Comparison of the true and 
false religious service as to 1, their nature, 2, 
their influence and 8, their relation to God.— 
Caution against the abuse of the doctrine of jus- 
tifying faith. 

Porusszky:—Be doers of the word and not 
hearers only !—Our Divine service is a surrender 
to God. 

Léue:—There is no doer but is also a true 
hearer. First a hearer, then a doer; true 
hearers, true doers. 

Lance:—lIf the word seizes not thyself, it will 
be a burden to thy head. 

Srier: v. 27.—He refers less to the work 
itself than to the disposition and impulse of heart 
which impels us to the distressed in their afflic- 
tion. Hence he says nothing of our feeding, 
clothing and providing for widows and orphans, 
but he specifies our visiting them in their afilic- 
tion, protecting them, assisting them and carry- 
ing to them the best of our possessions, true 
consolation. We understand, it is to be hoped, 
how much this requires, how the duty of love 
drives us constantly into the world and among 
men, and how it is incompatible with pharisaic 
or pietistic separateness and monkish solitari- 
ness.—How the hearing of the word is to become 
saving work, 

Von Kaprr:—Who is blessed in his doing? 

Fiorey:—How differently Christians use the - 
mirror of the Divine Word! 

Scumip:—The apothegm of wisdom concern- 
ing self-vigilance: 1. Mirror aright and see thy- 
self; 2. See aright and know thyself; 8. Know 
(thyself) aright and think thee small; 4. Who 
thinks him (self ) small is wise in all. 

HeRBERGER:—The keeping of God’s word 
makes it ours unto salvation. 

Covarp:—Caution against self-deceit in Chris- 
tianity. 

Soucnon:—Be doers of the word. 

WEsTERMAIER:—The same. 

J. Saurin:—An excellent sermon on y. 25, 
entitled: Sur la manitre Wétudier la Religion, 
Serm. Tom. iv. p. 1-48. ᾿ 

Lisco:—Of true religion—Be doers of the 
word and not hearers only. 1. When we shall be 
it? and 2, Whereby is it seen that we are it.— 
Of the nature of true religion. 

LeppreruosE :—The right hearing of the word. 

Nerring :—Ye shall be not only hearers of the 
word, but doers also [in a rhyme which hardly 
deserves reproduction.—M. ]. 

[This section is already so full of homiletical 
matter that instead of supplying additional ones, 
I refer the reader to the new matter given under 
««Exegetical and Critical” and to the following 
standard works which will furnish him with 
much that is excellent and full of thought. 

On verse 22. The Sermon of ΒΡ. ANDREWS, V. 
p. 195; also Br. Sanverson, III. p. 366. 

On verse 26. Br. Burier’s Sermon IV.; Dr. 
Barrow, Serm. XIII., Vol. I. p. 283.—M.]. 


CHAP. II. 1-13. 71 


ΠΟΥ νον νι πάει ee 


ve 


THIRD ADMONITION WITH REFERENCE TO. THE THIRD 
FORM OF TEMPTATION. EBIONITE CONDUCT. 


CAUTION AGAINST JUDAISTIC PARTIALITY, AGAINST FAVOURING THE RICH (THE 


QQ bo 


-ς ὦ Ort OU > 


μ--- μὰ 


JUDAIZING CHRISTIAN) AND DEPRECIATING THE POOR (THE GENTILE CHRIS- 
TIAN) IN THEIR CHURCH-LIFE. CONSISTENT PROOF OF FAITH DEMANDED IN 
THE WORK OF CHRISTIAN BROTHERLY LOVE AND IN THE ACKNOWLEDGING OF 
UNITY OF FAITH IN THE FAITH-WORK OF ABRAHAM THE’ PATRIARCH AND 
IN THE FAITH-WORK OF RAHAB, THE GENTILE HARLOT. DEAD AND LIVING 
FAITH. 


Cuaprrter II. 


My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with 
respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly! a man with ἃ gold ring,’ 
in goodly apparel, and there came in also a poor man in vile raiment: And ye have?’ 
respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him,‘ Sit thou here in a 
good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit -here® under my footstool: 
‘Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world,’ rich in 
faith, and heirs of the kingdom* which he hath promised to them that love him? 
But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you’ before 
the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye 
are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, 
and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall’ keep the whole 
law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit 
adultery," said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, 
thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall 


be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy,” that 


hath shewed no mercy; and” mercy rejoiceth against gudgment. What doth τέ 
profit,“ my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can 
faith save him? “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute’ of daily food, 
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwith- 
standing ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what 
doth it profit? Even so faith" if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 
Yea, ἃ man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without"® 
thy works, and I will shew thee” my faith by my” works. Thou believest” that 
there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt 
thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?* Was not Abraham our 
father justified by works, when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou 
how faith wrought with™ his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the 
Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto 
him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then” how that 
by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the 
harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers,” and had sent them 
Ae: way’ For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without” works 
is dead also. 


Verse 1. Lange: My brethren, do not practise the faith in our Lord Jesus, the Christ of glory [the Messiah in His 
giory ou above Judaistic expectations] with respectings of persons [personal considerations, partia- 
ities. 
. +... hold not ye the faith .... [the Lord] of glory in respecting of persons.—M ] 
Verse 2. 1 εἰς τὴν. A.G.K. Tischendorf; omit τ nv B.C. Sin. al. Lachmann [Alford—M.], an important varia- 
tion, showing that the reference is not to particular synagogues. 
[23 xpvcodaxrtvaAcos—golden-ringed.—M. } 
Lange: For if there had entered into your common assembly (svva yw γ ἤ) aman with a gold finger- 
ring, in a clean splendid garment, but there had also entered a poor man in an unclean garment. 
[For if there come into your place of assembly a man with golden rings, etc.—M.] 
Verse 3. 8 ἐ τι ΧΕ τε δὲ. Β.6. Κ'. Tischendorf [Alford], is more expressive than καὶ ἐπιβλέψητε A.G. 
achmann. 


72 THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


4 The omission of αὐτῷ A.B.C.Sinait. keeps the expression more general and gives it more dogmatical 
colouring [than its insertion, Rec. K. L. Vulg. and al.—M. 

6 &Se inserted in C.** G. K., is omitted by A. B. C.*—The addition of τῶν ποδῶν in A. Vulg. [Syr.—M]. 
Lachmann, seems to be exegetical and intensive, but may have been dropped owing to a moderation in 
expression. 

Lange: And ye were looking upon [made a looking up, a demonstration of] him who wore the clean splendid 
rment and should say [to him] [thou], sit thou here on the best place, but should say to the poor, 
thou] keep standing here [on the standing place], or sit{here] under [down at] my footstool. 
Verse 4. δκαὶ omitted before ot by A. B.C. Sinait, may have beer objected to in the apodosis as a striking form, 
Lange: Did ye not then separate [divide] among ourselves, and become judges according to evil considera- 
tions? 
(Did ye not distinguish (invidiously) among ourselves etc.—M.] ὃ 
οιβοῦ. ΤΉΘΟ reads τοῦ κόσμον τούτου; [A.** C.** K.L. τοῦ κόσμονυ--Μ,|); τῷ κόσμῳ Α.58. C* Sin 


ς 
Lange: .... hath not God also chosen the poor [according to the world), who are rich in faith, heirs of 
Verse 6. [9 For ὑμῶν A. Sinait, read bu as.—M.]} 


judgment? 
[Is it not they that drag you into courts of justice?—M.] 

Verse 7. Lange: Is it not just they who blaspheme that fair [glorious] name, which hath been made to you a sur- 
name? 5 

[ .... that glorious name, which was invoked over you?—M. 

Verse 8. Lange: If indeed ye fulfil [complete under the New Testament] the royal law [the law of the kingdom] ac- 
cording to the Scripture, Tnou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye act beautifully {conformable to 
the beautiful name of Christ as Christians]. 

[If, however, ye fulfil ete.—M.] 
Verse 9. Lange: But if ye practise respect of persons, ye practise sin, convicted by the [very] law as transgressors. 
{διὸ if ye respect persons, ye work sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.—M.] 
Verse 10. ὁ τηρήσῃ and πταίσῃ, the most authentic readings. So (A. B. C. Sinait—M_.] Lachmann, Tischendorf. 
lane For whosoever should observe . . . . in one thing [commandment] the same hath become guilty of 
all. 
[For whosoever shall have kept etc.—M.] 
Verse 11. 11 A. B. C. Sin. have the Present μοιχεύεις, φονεύεις. 
Verse 12. [. .. as those about to be judged by the law of liberty.—M.] 
Verse 13.12 avéAeos not ἀνίλεως, is the true reading. So A. B.C. [K. Alford—M.] Lach., Tisch. On the form, 
itself and variations of spelling it see Huther. 
18 καὶ before kataxavx, ‘found only in minuscule codd; ὃὲ after kataxavx, is probably also 
a stylistic insertion; the variations κατακαυχάσθω in A.(Vuly;—yaaGe C.** M.];—x ate are 
exegetical efforts to render the text more easy—éAeos instead of ἔλεον supported by A. B. 
Tischend., [Alford.—M.} 
Lange: For the judgment is merciless to him who did not practise mercy, and mercy boasteth [triumph- 
ped against the judgment [thus Christian mercy triumphantly excels the judging legalistic spirit of 
udaism. 
[For = judgment fc be] merciless to him who wrought not mercy. Mercy boasteth ({triumpheth] over 
judgment.—M. 

Verse 14. 4 Ti τὸ ὄφελος, Tischend. following the majority of Codd. Lachmann: τέ ὄφελος, So alsoin v. 16. 

Lange: . . . . [what profit doth it bring] if any man were to say that he hath faith, but were to have no 
works. Faith [in such a case] surely cannot save him? 
[ .... can his faith [ἡ πίστι ςἾ save him?—M.| 

Verse 15. M>éayv δὲ the most aughentic reading; omit ὃ ὲ B. Sinait—M.] 

Lange: But if a brother or sister were naked and bare and destitute of daily food. 

Verse 16. %ocv afterAectropuevor in A. @. Lachmann, is unimportant as tosense. Sin. [Β. C. K. Syr. Tischend. 

Alford.—M.] omit it. 
Lange: And one of you should say to them: Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, but ye were not to 
give to them those things which are needful to the body, what would that profit? 
fAnd some one from among you say to them ..... but ye give them not the necessaries of the body, 
what is the profit?—M. 
Versel7. 1" ἔχῃ ἔργα [A.B.C. K. Tischend, Alf.—M.], is the most authentic and most emphatic reading. 
Lange: So also faith, if it has not works, is dead for itself. 
So also faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself (ka θ᾽ éavutyv.—M.] 
Verse 18. 8 χωρὶς A. B.C. Sin. Lachmann, Tischend. [ἐκ Rec. K. L.—M.] 
gov after ἔργων omitted by A. B. [Tischend. Alford.—M.} 
®,ov after ἔργων wanting in Vulg. Syr. B.C. It seems to have originated in the parallelism of this 
sentence with the one preceding it according to its rejected readings. 
21 B.C. οὐκί μον after πίστιν [A. K.L. insert it.—M.] 
Lange: But some one will say [to a man of such faith]: thou hast faith and I have works: show me thy 
faith without the works [how canst thou do it?], and I will show thee my faith out of [by] the works. 
[Nay, some one will say ... . show me thy faith without [apart from] the works, and I will show thee 
my faith by [out of ἐ κΊ my works.—M.] 
Verse 19. 2 Different readings, Rec. with α. θεὸς els ἐστι; A. Sinait. Lachmann, εἷς ἐστιν ὃ θεός; B. Tisch- 
end. [Alford]: els ὁ θεός ἐστιν. The strongest emphasis of A is also the most probable. 
Lange: Thou believest [the article of the law and of doctrine] that God is one: that thou doest well therein; 
the evil spirits [the demons] also believe that and shudder. 

Verse 20. %vexpa A. 0.** G@. K.[Rec. Vulg. Copt.—M.], opposed by apy% in B.C.* etc; the latter more probable 

(Lachm. and Tischend. support it) because the former seems to have been occasioned by vy. 17. 
Lange: But wilt thou know it, 0 empty man! that faith without works is useless a Geena 
[ .... that faith without [apart from] the works is useless [bootless. Alford]?—M. 
Verse 21. Lange: . . . . justified [proved righteous] by works [out of works] when he offered Isaac, his son, on the 
altar of sacrifice [Gen. xxii.]? 
{ ... When he offered Isaac, his son, on the altar.—M.] 
Verse 22, [Ξ συνέργει A. Sinait.—M.] 
Lange: Thou seest that his faith was energetically joined with his works [was manifested as one with his 
works] and that faith was completed by works [out of works]. ἶ 
[Thou seest that faith was working together with his works and that by [é«] works faith was made com- 
plete. 

Verse 23. Lange: And thus also was fulfilled . . . . righteousness [in justification proper Gen. xv. 6.] 

Verse 24. %roivuy wanting in A. B. C. Sin. (Tisch. Alf.—M.] etc. 

Lange: Ye ece [therefore] that by [out of } works man is justified [proved righteous as man] etc. 
Verse 25. %xatagxémovs, C. G. seems to be taken from Heb. xi. 31. 

Lange: ..... and sent them forth by another way. 
Verse 26. [2] χωρὶς ἔργων. B. Sinait.—M.} 

Lange: For as the body without spirit etc. 


CHAP. II. 1-13. 73 


nn EEUU EEEEEnSESUE EEE 


21. Caaprer II. 1-13. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Anatysis: Caution against partiality in the 
Christian Church-life, that is against the Ebion- 
itizing preference of the Jewish Christian and 
putting back of the Gentile Christian, in connec- 
tion with the demand of the proof of faith in the 
exhibition of brotherly love.—Leading points: 
Reference to the abolition of respect of persons 
by the Christ of glory.—Ebionite conduct in a pa- 
rable, vv. 1-4.—iReference to the faith of the poor 
(in a symbolical sense) as well as to the unbelief 
of the rich (cf. Matth, xxii, 1-10), vv. 5-7.—True 
fidelity of the law or the fulfilling of the whole 
law in the royal commandment of love, as well 
as the damnable transgression of the whole law 
in sinning against this commandment, vv. 8-13.— 
The true life of faith or faith evinced by the mercy 
of brotherly love and dead faith illustrated by 
heartless demeanour, vy. 14-17.—The proof of 
faith by the works of faith or the believer's jus- 
tification before the consciousness of the Church ; 
vy. 18, 19.—The two examples of the proof of 
faith by works as a general example of the unity 
of the living faith of Jews and Gentiles, vv. 20-- 
26. 

Caution against partiality in Christian Church- 
life, that is against Ebionitizing demeanour. The 
parable of such demeanour. vv. 1-4. 

Ver. 1. My brethren, do not practise.— 
The Apostle does not, as is generally supposed, 
pass from the doctrine of charity to a particular 
example of charity. If this were so, the example 
would be ill-chosen, for respect of persons does 
not violate primarily the duty of charity but the 
law of justice and equality. He rather passes 
on to a new form of the temptation. 

This clause is not (as Schneckenburger and 
Kern take it) interrogative, not because the fact 
in question is beyond all doubt (Huther), for 
the interrogative form would express this more 
definitely (is it not so that ye, etc.), but because 
the form of a warning exhortation makes it im- 
perative. The interrogative construction is in- 
admissible not only because of the analogy in ch. 
i. 16 but also on account of the parable which 
shows the form of the temptation to which they 
were exposed. 

Do not practise: —éyew denotes not only, 
‘‘do not hold your faith as if it were shut up 
in προσωποληψίαις᾽" (Huther); still less, ‘do not 
detain your faith” (xaréyere Grotius), but still 
stronger ‘do not hold, cherish it in this form.” 
The faith of fanaticism is not only allied with 
particularisms but the particularisms constitute 
its very glory. The Plural προσωποληψίαι points 
to the ever returning and diversified occurrences 
of this kind. 

The faith in our Lord Jesus, the Christ. 
—Different constructions: 1. The faith in our Lord 
of glory, Jesus Christ (de Wette, Wiesinger, and 
al.; reference to 1 Cor. ii. 8). This construc- 
tion is inadmissible on account of the position of 
τῆς δόξης. ἃ. δόξα taken ina different sense from 
its ordinary signification—opinion (Calvin: the 
knowledge of Christ obscured by the respect 
paid to wealth). Wholly inadmissible, because 

6 


this mode of expression would be most remark- 
able and because the faith of Christ itself could 
not be thus disfigured. 3. τοῦ κυρίου etc. Geni- 
tive of the subject: the faith, derived from our 
Lord Jesus Christ, on the glory (Huther). 
4. Bengel: τῆς δόξης is in apposition to Christ 
ut ipse Christus dicatur ἡ δόξα. Gloria. Luke ii. 
32; Eph. i. 17 ete. Christ, the glory not suf- 
ficiently developed, although the idea that Christ 
is the Schechinah would otherwise be quite suit- 
able. 5. Laurentius unites δόξης with Χριστοῦ, 
Christus glorie, but Huther objects that this con- 
struction would require the Article before Χρισ- 
τοῦ. This would however occasion an error as 
if a twofold Christ were conceivable. In German 
however we have to emphasize the Article, as 
far as it is in τῆς δόξης. The sense is plain: faith 
in the Christ of glory is incompatible with esti- 
mating persons according to carnal respects. 
See the analogous idea 2 Cor. v. 16 and Eph. 
ii. 16, 17. Christ in virtue of His exaltation has 
also acquired the κυριότης of the unbelieving 
Jews. See Matth. xxvi. 64; Rom. ix. 5. [But 
on the whole it seems best, because it is the least 
forced construction, to govern τῆς δόξης by κυ- 
piov, see 1 Cor. ii. 8.—M.]} 

Ver. 2. For if there had entered; γάρ 
gives the reason not of the whole exhortation as 
such, but of the reference (connected with it) to 
the glory of Christ, which Luther has made pro- 
minent in his free translation; Do not suppose 
that faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord of glory, 
suffers respect of persons. The construction 
which makes the antecedent extend to the end 
of vy. 4 and then makes the consequent begin 
(Michaelis, Herder ete.) has been justly set aside 
by Huther; v. 4 is the consequent. The refer- 
ence of the following exhortation to nrisconduct 
in worship has led to the opinion that James is 
primarily addressing the Church-wardens (Gro- 
tius etc). We have already shown that this 
view over against the grand prophetico-symboli- 
cal expression of the Apostle is inadequate The 
misconduct to which James refers is so general 
and important as to preclude the literal accep- 
tation of what follows. In the first place it can- 
not be assumed that such a grievance as that of 
assigning bad places to the poor had spread 
throughout the entire Jewish Christian disper- 
sion and in the second, it is even more Improb- 
able that James should have received reliable in- 
formation concerning a disorder so universally 
prevalent. The ἐάν also and the Aorist indicate 
a relation which has become historical and is 
still in course of development. 

Into your common-assembly.—Schneck- 
enburger and al. interpret the Jewish synago- 
gue, Huther, the place of the Christian assembly, 
de Wette, with reference to Heb. x. 25, the re- 
ligious assembly. But the Article indicates that 
the one synagogue of the entire Jewish Christian 
dispersion is meant, that is their religious com- 
munity symbolically described by the name of 
the Jewish place of worship. The symbol is the 
more appropriate in that it characterizes the 
family-bias to unionin Judaism. The reference 
to civil judicial assemblies; which Herder and 
al. find here, is altogether unfounded. We have 
endeavoured to bring out in the translation the 
uniting element of Christianity. 


74 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


If there had entered a man.—The Aorist 
not only aids the imagination by its picturesque 
force but indicates the historical fact that belie- 
vers with Judaistic pretensions had already 
entered the Church. 

With a gold finger-ring.—The character 
of the parables delineating and censuring on the 
one hand the factious conduct of the Jewish 
Christians towards the Judaizers proper and on 
the other towards the Gentile Christians, comes 
out in the most decided manner. According to 
Wiesinger and Huther our text gives only an 
example instar omniuwm for the representation of 
that sinful προσωποληψία, while many older com- 
mentators see in it only a figure of the prefer- 
ence of the rich to the poor, and these are the 
common views. These views give only rise to 
the question whether the rich and the poor are 
to be considered members of the Christian com- 
monwealth (Knapp, Theile, de Wette), or unbe- 
lievers or hospites (Pott, Kern, Schneckenbur- 
ger). Wiesinger, in support of the former view, 
alleges that the Epistle being addressed to Chris- 
tian readers, the oppressive disparities between 
rich and poor should be taken as introcongrega- 
tional (ch. iv. 1; vv. 13—15; vy. 1); Huther, in 
support of the latter, that the rich are distin- 
guished from the brethren etc.; Weiss (Deutsche 
Zeitschrift fiir Christliche Wissenschaft, 1854, No. 
51) makes the rich a non-Christian, the poor a 
Christian. Schwegler is altogether wrong in 
making the rich the Gentile Christian and the 
poor the Jew, for it would follow from this that 
the Jewish Christians did exhibit partiality to- 
wards the Gentile Christians. But he is on the 
right track in that he sees in the Epistle a re- 
flection of the circumstances of the time. Now 
we hold that the rich here and throughout the 
Epistle is not less symbolical than the rich in 
the Gospel (Matth. xix. 24 ete.) and just so the 
poor. But the attributes of the rich indicate 
whereof he is proud. He is in the first place a 
χρυσοδακτύλιος (the word ἅπαξ Aey.). That rings 
with the ancients, especially among the Jews (asa 
signet-ring) were highly esteemed is evident 
from Gen. xli. 42; Esther iii. 10; viii. 2; Luke 
xv. 22. Received as a gift it denotes the prero- 
gative of representing the donor; in the parable 
of the prodigal doubtless the restoration to the 
filial state. But the man with the gold ring can- 
not be any other than the Judaist priding him- 
self in and boasting of his covenant-right and 
sonship (which to the humble was indeed a veri- 
table gold-ring see Rom. ix.), as a χρυσοδακτύλιος, 
a gold-finger-ring-wearer by profession. He is fur- 
ther described by wearing a splendid garment 
(λαμπρός) which according to Rev. xv. 6 involves 
in particular the idea of purity and connected 
therewith denotes the Jewish pretensions to pu- 
rity and holiness or glory. In like manner 
the garment of the poor, that is, of the Gentile 
Christian, is not stained in the ordinary sense 
but from a réligious point of view, as is proved 
by the ῥυπαρός Zech. iii. 8, 4. In Rev. xxii. 11 
also it denotes the opposite of the Holy in a sym- 
bolical sense, According to the Jewish concep- 
tion of purity the Gentile Christians had entered 
the Church in such a garment; but that James 
notwithstanding accords to them the wedding- 
garment is evident from y. 25. Raphelius on 


λαμπρός, ‘“nullum certum colorem declarat, sed 
splendidum, clarum, nitidum, seu rubrum sit, seu 
alius generis.” 

Ver. 83. And ye were looking upon.— 
Ἐπιβλέπειν is emphatic (Pott). Upon the ὁ 
φορῶν τὴν ἐσθῆτα, also very significant, he who 
wears that and carries himself in wearing it. 
Instead of experiencing disgust at the spectacle 
of vanity which manifestly looks out of that 
proud dress, they suffer themselves to be de- 
ceived by that glitter, which in their estimate 
should have been valueless, and to be awed by 
the haughty claims to it. This rich man is first 
looked at, contemplated in astonishment, then 
complimented, he also stands first; meanwhile 
the eye is averted from the poor man, who is 
furthermore despatched in a hurry. ‘The dif- 
ference of speech to the one and to the other 
strongly marks the contrast; they are first dis- 
tinguished by oi—ot, then κάθου and στῆθι, ὧδε 
and ἐκεῖ, καλῶς and ὑπὸ τὸ ὑπόδιόν μου are oppo- 
sites” A The addition ‘or sit thou 
here, etc,’”’ as allowing him to be seated, is in- 
tended to modify the hardness of the word 
‘‘keep standing there,” but becomes a further 
humiliation, ‘sit here under my footstool.’ 
This means certainly ‘‘down at my footstool.” 
but the expression involves contempt; as it were 
under one’s feet. Not on the footstool. The 
Judaist either wanted to acknowledge the Gen- 
tile Christian merely as hospes in the Church, or 
to concede to him at most an inferior right of 
communion. As the reading ἐπί [for ὑπό B** 
—M.] indicates a tendency to soften the harsh- 
ness of the expression, a similar tendency may 
have omitted τῶν ποδῶν before μου. 

Ver. 4. Did ye not then separate among 
yourselves.—The comments on this passage 
are wide apart. Some plead ov as a declaration, 
others as a question. 1. Those who take it de- 
claratorily: then, partly ye would not have distin- 
guished (according to sound judgment) among 
yourselves, partly ye would have judged after 
an evil manner of thinking (Grashof ); or, ‘‘ then 
ye are not any longer distinguished among your- 
selves, 7. e., godly and ungodly” (Oeder); or, 
“then ye have not rightly judged among your- 
selves’? (Oecumenius, Bengel); or, ‘‘then ye 
have not yet judged yourselves”’ (Heisen) ; ‘not 
yourselves but your garments” (Cajetan). But 
the construction is decidedly in favour of the in- 
terrogative form, particulary the hypothetical 
form and the brevity of the consequent. Hence 
2, interrogatively: a. διακρίνεσθαιξεεῖο doubt in the 
sense of having scruples concerning a thing. 
“Ye had no scruples, οἷο. ὃ (Theile). ὁ. to 
doubt in the literal sense: ‘‘have ye not become 
doubters in your faith? or similarly (de Wette, 
Wiesinger, Huther); c¢. the verb=to judge: do 
ye then not judge among yourselves?” (Augus- 
ti); or the Verb passive: ‘Do ye not condemn 
yourselves? (Paraeus). d. to make difference; 
did ye not make differences (in a bad sense) 
among yourselves?” (Grotius, Knapp and al.). 
This interpretation passes into e. to separate, to 
divide in a Passive or Middle sense. But the 
Middle sense lies nearest: do ye not separate, 
divide yourselves in or among yourselves? (Sem- 
ler, Gebser, Schneckenburger). We hold with 
Schneckenburger that the beginning of dissen- 


CHAP. II. 1-13. 


75 


sion in the Church primarily takes rise in the 
minds of those factious Christians. They are 
also at schism in themselves, which schism al- 
though it begins with doubting (ch. i. 6) means 
more than doubting, as is the case in our time 
with those confessional zealots [confessional= 
pertaining to a confession, used in German al- 
most as the synonyme of denomination—M. ], who 
suspend the communion of the Lord’s Supper 
with other Evangelicals while they are willing 
otherwise to hold fraternal intercourse with 
them. Creating dissensions reacts on the zealots 
themselves so that they become divided in them- 
selves. Wiesinger and Huther allege in favour 
of their exposition that διακρίνεσθαι in the New 
Testament constantly signifies to doubt, which 
it does in many passages. But the Middle of our 
verb occurs in our sense in Jude 5, 22 and the 
transition from the Active (Acts xv. 9) to the 
Middle lay quite near. «ai intensifies the ques- 
tion. We have endeavoured in our translation to 
bring out the paronomasia of κριταί and διακρίθητε 
[In German: zerschieden and Schiedsrichter.—M. ]. 
From the evil schism in the heart springs evil 
judging in the life. Richter: after (according 
to) evil considerations (motives), not the evil, 
etc. That is, according to the motives of na- 
tional preferences, claims and prejudices, out- 
ward position, etc. 

Reference to the faith of the poor in a symbolical 
sense as well as to the faith of the sick vy. 5-7. 

Ver. 5. Listen, my beloved brethren.— 
The painful earnestness of the Apostle’s mind in 
view of the dangerous symptoms he had de- 
scribed may be seen in his animated exhorta- 
tion, his lively address (see ch, i. 16) and his 
questions. 

Did not God choose the poor?—Cf. 1 
Cor. xii. 26. Huther: ‘poor to the world” 
[Germ. for the world.—M.]. Wiesinger: ‘poor 
as regards the world.” In the latter sense re- 
ference may be made to the analogous τῷ πνεύματι 
Matth. v. 3. But that condition of poverty as to 
the Spirit, simultaneously expresses a longing 
for the Spirit. But such an element would be 
out of place here, hence the sense ‘‘to the world”’ 
is more appropriate. These persons whom you 
call poor, because they are Gentile Christians, 
are rather poor to the world according to their 
relation to the world; but to you they ought to 
be rich, seeing they are rich in faith. The fact 
that the Ebonites afterwards called themselves 
poor as regards this world, presents no obstacle 
to this exposition. Their usus loquendi was 
doubtless rather formed after the pattern of 
James than vice versa, just as the Gnostics did 
probably borrow many of their expressions from 
Paul, not Paul from them. [But the sense 
“poor as regards the world” is after all at least 
as good as that given by Lange; it is general, 
and there is no reason why even Lange’s inter- 
pretation may not be included in it: the Dative 
of reference here simply shows that these per- 
sons were poor with reference to the world ob- 
jectively or subjectively or both.—M. ]. 

Rich in faith.—Not rich in the possession 
of much faith [nicht reich an Glauben. Germ.— 
M.], but they are rich in virtue of their faith. 
Still the stress lies not only on the general being 
rich, the result of the general condition of be- 


lieving, but also on the particular measure of 
their being rich as contrasted with the false 
being rich of the Judaists. Who are rich in 
faith. Huther: Πλουσίους ἐν πίστει not in appo- 
sition with τοὺς πτωχούς (Erasmus, Baumgarten, 
etc.), but the complement of ἐξελέξατο, stating 
whereto God did choose the poor (Beza, Wolf, 
Wiesinger, etc.). But taking James’ choosing 
as exactly synonymous with Paul’s we consider 
to be not proven. Here the word evidently sig- 
nifies rather calling, with reference to ethical 
good behaviour to the Divine revelation. That 
is: “the decree (more definitely the election) of 
God is here viewed (indicated) in respect of tem- 
poral manifestation.”’ Wiesinger. Still an es- 
sential element of the idea of election is held 
fast. The nearer definition of the election lies 
in καὶ κληρονόμους se. εἶναι. That is: Did not 
God choose these poor according to the world 


.(from among the Gentiles) who prove themselves 


rich in faith, that they also may be heirs of the 
kingdom? Cf. Acts xv. 14, etc.; Eph. ii.—It is to 
be borne in mind that only the poor to the world 
were also the “rich” among the Jews. But 
this characteristic was not enough here, while 
the correction ‘poor to the world, rich in faith” 
was sufficiently definite. James therefore here 
utters the same idea, on which Paul laid peculiar 
stress as the characteristic of his evangelization, 
Eph. iii. 8-6, ete.—x«Anpovduovc here, points not to 
the kingdom as future (so Huther), but as καὶ 
κληρονόμους to the joint participation in the true 
υἱοθεσία of the Jews.— 

Heirs of the kingdom.—lIt is the kingdom 
of God, the real theocracy completed in the New 
Testament, progressing towards eschatological 
completion, not the latter only, as Huther main- 
tains. James separates from this kingdom 
whatever is particularly Jewish, describing it as 
the kingdom, that peculiar kingdom which God 
has prepared for those who love Him. The com- 
mon construction gives a proposition not limited 
like 1 Cor. 1. 26-28, and not sufficiently proven 
by Matth. xix. 29, 26; viz.: “‘chosen the poor in 
this sense that those whom God did choose be- 
long to this category, while those belonging to 
the category of the rich have not been chosen.” 
(Huther). It is impracticable to take the one 
expression literally, the other figuratively. 

Ver. 6. But ye dishonoured the poor 
(man).—dé denotes the antithesis of ϑεός, ἠτεμά- 
care the antithesis of ἐξελέξατο, as Huther rightly 
observes. Still the Aorist is used, not only be- 
cause reference is made to vy. 2 and 3, and be- 
cause the case is general, but its historical force 
points to a historical fact, in which Judaizing 
Jewish Christians have already taken part with 
the Jews, viz.: the dishonouring of the Gentile 
Christians. 

But is it not the rich?—These rich, who 
use violence towards themselves, i. e. the Christians, 
(ef. the expressions Matth. xx. 25). The refer- 
ence here is not: any more to the rich in general 
than before to the poor (both according to Hu- 
ther). The populace took as much part in the 
persecution of the Christians as the nobility, the 
former indeed were conspicuous init. Never- 
theless it was with the Judaists who fancied 
themselves theocratically rich, that the impulses 
to the persecution of the Christians did then still 


76 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


originate. So e.g. the first persecution of the 
Apostles, the execution of Stephen. καὶ αὐτοί, it 
is just they. All sympathizing of Christian ul- 
tras with Judaistic Jews contained the germ of 
want of self-respect, as is the case nowadays 
with all sympathizing of the evangelical ultras 
with the ultramontanists and that of pietistic 
ultras with the confessionalists. Is it not just 
they who excommunicate you? one might ask in 
the latter cases. 

Ver. 7. Is it not just they who blas- 
pheme that fair name?—Favouring those rich 
ones would involve not only want of self-respect 
but even a participation in the guilt of their 
blasphemous conduct in respect of the fair name. 
This blaspheming cannot be taken figuratively 
as if it did denote insult heaped on that fair 
name by the eyil works of the Christian rich 
men themselves, as Huther rightly observes in 
refutation of the views of several commentators 
(also of Wiesinger, whose citations, e. g. Jer. lii. 
δ: δὶ ὑμᾶς τὸ ὄνομα μου βλασφημεῖται and similar 
ones, do not prove that βλασφημεῖν has the direct 
meaning ‘‘to dishonour’’), nor can the reference 
be (according to Hensler) to the Christian name, 
for that is just the transfer of that name to them; 
the name of the poor is altogether out of the 
question. It is only the name of Christ to which 
reference is made, whether believers were al- 
ready called γριστιανοί (which was the case, in 
part at least, Acts xi. 26), or not. The name of 
Christ was transferred to them as a surname de- 
noting at once their peculiarity and to whom 
they belonged. [They were Christ's χριστοῦ, 1 
Cor. iii. 23.—M.]. The expression is formed 


after the Hebrew model by N73 fv’ (Deut. 


xxviii. 10; 2 Chron. vii. 14; ef. Is. iv. 1; Gen. 
xlviii. 16 and Acts xv. 14,17). In virtue of the 
fact that once the name of Jehovah was called 
over Israel, Israel was described the people of 
Jehovah; in like manner Christians are now the 
Christian people (the people of Christ—M.] in 
virtue of the name of Christ. His name is called 
fair, in opposition to the insulting blaspheming; 
it is the fair, the glorious name κατ᾽ éfoy7v; the 
name of the Lord of Glory (ch. ii. 1), in which 
is all salvation (Actsiv.1; Phil. ii. 10, Wiesin- 
ger). The Christian rich men could not any 
more be reproached with the sin of blaspheming 
the name of Christ (βλασφημεῖν always denotes 
abusive language, Huther), than the non-Chris- 
tian rich men in general (the names even of 
Pilate, Gallio, Agrippa, Festus and al. may here 
be called to mind); the reproach fitted solely, 
if the Judaists were the rich in a figurative 
sense; to them it was wholly applicable. 

True fidelity of the law or the fulfilling of the 
whole law in the royal commandment of love, as 
well as the damnable transgression of the whole 
law in sinning against this commandment, vy. 8-18. 

Ver. 8. If, indeed, ye fulfil the royal 
law.—The connection, by the introduction of 
μέντοι, is difficult, but only, if doubts remain as 
to what precedes. James had just now reproved 
his readers for being partial to Judaists, proud 
of the law and fancying themselves rich, 7. e. 
because they themselves were not free from legal 
onesidedness. The progress of the thought fully 
accords therewith: ‘The whole consistency of 


true fidelity to the law, to besure, ye ought to 
exhibit, according to the commandment, thou 
shalt love, ete.; but your partiality is a breach of 
the law.’’ According to Huther and many cthers 
(Calvin, Theile etc.) James wants to meet the ex- 
cuse of his readers that their respect of the rich 
was the outgoing of love; but surely no Jew 
could have thought of representing προσωποληψία 
as love. Although in this case μέντοι is rendered 
certainly (indeed, German freilich) the sense is dif- 
ferent: igitur (Schneckenburger) and yet (de 
Wette) are also set aside by our explanation. 
[ Whichever particle be chosen, μέντοι is clearly 
adversative.—M. ]. 

The royal law.—The law denotes here not 
a single commandment (as Huther maintains 
with reference to Jer. xxxi. 33, Heb. viii. 10; 
x. 16), for the commandment cited immediately 
afterwards embraces the whole law as com- 
pleted inthe New Testament. It is royal not only 
because it is supreme and the most excellent 
(so Wiesinger with reference to Philo, Plato and 
also Theile, Schneckenburger andal.). Although 
Christ, placing Himself on the Jewish stand-point 
calls it first and great, immediately afterwards 
He describes it as all-embracing and principial 
(Matt. xxii. 39), and this New Testament con- 
ception of it is found also in Paul, Rom. xiii. 8-10; 
Gal. ν. 14. Nowif this principial [7. e. original, 
initial, elementary—M.] nature of the law and 
this its oneness, Mark xii. 32, are inferred from 
the Oneness of God, the Giver of the Law, the 
explanation that it is called royal because it pro- 
ceeds from God its Author, is not so far-feteched 
(Raphelius, Wetstein and al.), as Wiesinger sup- 
poses, who says that this is true in respect of 
the whole law; but this objection lacks point, 
inasmuch as the cited commandment is really 
the whole law; but it leads to the exposition that 
the ‘royal commandment is the commandment 
of Christ” (Grotius). Its applying to kings as 
well as to other men (Michaelis) its being a wa 
regia (Calvin), are explanations which do not 
reach the fundamental idea; its making kings 
(Thomas) is less remote; but it is probably 
called here the law royal and the law of the 
kingdom, because of the authority of rich men 
and the contrast between rich and poor must 
completely vanish before the authority of the 
king. Before Christ, the Lord of Glory, who 
has comprehended all laws in this one law, the 
rich are low and the poor rich (ch. ii. 1; i. 9 ete.) 
Negatively, the law completed in the New Testa- 
ment is a principle of perfect liberty (Acts i. 35), 
Positively it is a royal principle exacting per- 
fect obedience to the Lord. Hence we have here 
once more the word τελεῖν conformably to the 
previously repeated allusions to the New Testa- 
ment τέλος. [But why not take νόμον βασιλικόν 
in its plain and obvious sense, the law royal, 
‘the law which is the king of alllaws” (Alford)? 
This rendering (with reference to Rom. xiii. 10) 
suits the context well.—M.]—xara τὴν γραφήν 
refers not only to τελεῖτο but to the whole sen- 
tence νόμον βασιλικόν τελεῖτε for the νόμος Ex. xx. 
in its higher royal form is already traced before- 
hand, Ley. xix. 18, while that discursive form of 
the law is referred to the ministration of angels 
(Gal. iii. 19). 

Ye do well. (German: ‘ye act beautifully,”’) 


CHAP. II. 1-13. 


77 


—That is: conformably to the beautiful name, 
which those men blaspheme. Christianly beau- 
tiful, answering to the spiritual beauty or the 
glory of the name of Christ. Huther’s remark 
that here something is to be conceded, not without 
irony, to the opponents, lies outside of the context. 

Ver. 9. But if ye respect persons.— 
προσωποληπτεῖν is ἅπαξ λεγ. and admirably chosen 
by James to denote Judaizing Christianity. By 
such conduct they suppose to avoid sin, but he 
tells them: by this very thing ye are working 
sin (ἐργάζεσθαι is stronger than ποιεῖν, Matth. vii. 
23, etc.). 

Convicted by the law.—The reference 
here is certainly to the specific prohibition of 
prosopolepsy [respect of persons—M.] Deué. xvi. 
19 and similar interdictions (Huther denies it), 
inasmuch as it formulates the commandment of 
love literally and at the same time in the light 
of it acquires a more general sense; that is, the 
law of love in its oneness, as applied to the ques- 
tion under notice, runs into an express prohi- 
bition of prosopolepsy. The very law therefore 
on which the Judaist plumes himself, convicts 
him as a transgressor. The choice of the word 
παραβάτης has here, asin Rom. ii. 25, and like 
παράβασις ch. vy. 14, a peculiar emphasis; the 
Judaistico-Ebionite transgression of the law as 
completed in the New Testament is, as it were, a 
second fall. Cf. Gal. ii. 18. 

Ver. 10. For whosoever shall have kept 
the whole law.—Hypothetical case, put so as 
to apply at once to the Jewish stand-point in its 
full consequence and to the Christian, without 
being ambiguous, because the full consequence 
of Judaism leads to Christianity. The uniform 
solidarity of the law is also acknowledged by the 
Jews; hence Rabbi Jonathan says; ‘‘ quod si 
faciat omnia, unum vero omittat, omnium est singu- 
lorum reus.” ἐν ἑνί is to be taken agreeably to 
the preceding. Not the one definite command- 
ment of love (Oecumenius, Semler), which em- 
braces the whole but any one point of the law. 
Since νόμοι is rarely used to denote the Mosaic 
commandments one might feel inclined to take 
ἑνί as a neuter (with Schneckenburger and Kern), 
but since the following πάντων, according to 
Huther and al., renders the construction difficult, 
it is better to assume James entering into the 
Jewish mode of view which he potentiates in 
saying that every separate ἐντολῇ has also the 
full force of a νόμος. Wiesinger says that James 
takes the most favourable case in order to make 
his statement as convincing as possible. But 
James is hardly willing to yield this most favour- 
able case to the reader. The point to be made 
is the demonstration of the absolute inviolability 
of the law. The πταίειν may be understood as 
well of a slight offence as of a gross offence, the 
declaration holding good in either case; but the 
context seems to require the latter construction 
which is also favoured by the preposition ἐν, 
Whosoever offends in one point so as to fall, is 
preéminently a transgressor of all laws, ἡ, 6., he 
is an apostate. This sense follows more clearly 
from the sequel. Such an one is ἔνοχος, i. ¢., 
held fast in guilt [Germ. arrested—M. ] for satis- 
faction by the suffering of punishment. Each 
separate law becomes as it were a judge who 
arrests him. 


Ver. 11. For He who said.—The unity of 
all commandments lies primarily in the unity of 
the Lawgiver, Mark xii. 32. This implies of 
course the One Spirit of all commandments ac- 
cording to which all commandments are included 
in each separate commandment and the one sense: 
the requirement of love and the one recompense. 

Thou shalt not commit adultery.—Dif- 
ferent explanations have been given of the selec- 
tion of these two commandments. Baumgarten: 
Because their transgression was punished with 
death; Wiesinger: because the readers are no- 
where charged with μοιχεύειν (see for the contrary 
ch. iv.), whereas μὴ φονεύσῃς has the command- 
ment of love as its kernel, because these are the 
first duties under the law of love to one’s neigh- 
bour. However we have here once more to eall 
attention to the symbolical character of this 
Epistle. To the Israelite the prohibition of 
adultery was at once the prohibition of religious 
apostasy to heathenism (which probably accounts 
for the transpositions Mark x. 19, ete. of which 
Huther makes mention), and the prohibition of 
murder at once that of lovelessness [coined from 
the German Lieblosigkeit, for want of a current 
English equivalent—M. ] towards our neighbour. 
The sense therefore is probably as follows: the 
same God to whose commandment you appeal in 
your fear of intermingling with heathenism, has 
prohibited murder, of which you may become 
guilty by your hatred of men. We have no doubt 
that also 1 Jno. iii. 15 refers primarily to Ebionite 
conduct towards Christian fellowship (ch. ii. 19). 
The connection of the words with Matth. v. 17- 
19 is clear. 

Ver. 12. So speak ye and so do ye.— 
Application drawn from what has gone before, 
but not a new section (Semler). Huther wants 
to connect οὕτως with what follows, not with 
what has gone before. But the double οὕτως as 
well as the anteposition of λαλεῖτε refer strongly 
to what has gone before. The readers of the 
Epistle are charged not only after the manner 
of laymen to judge according to the anti-judaistic 
conception of the law, which had been laid down, 
but also to assert it in their respective spheres 
as witnesses of the truth (see ch. iii). Thus 
they were first to speak and to testify but then 
of course also to act accordingly. 

As those about to be judged by the law 
of liberty.—This is not the explication but the 
reason of the preceding exhortation. The ques- 
tion comes up why here again James calls the 
New Testament the law of liberty as in ch. i. 25 
and not, as above, the royal law? The law of 
liberty is the New Testament principle of the 
new life in the Gospel of Christ, which frees us 
from the restraint of the law. Conscious that 
according to their faithful or unfaithful conduct 
with reference to this law they are to be judged, 
true Jewish Christians and Israelites must cheer- 
fully testify against Judaism and its legalism 
and exhibit Christian fellowship. It is true that 
this νόμος, as such, admits least a non-observance 
of this or that commandment (Huther), but this is 
hardly the reason why it is called νόμος ἐλευθερίας. 

Ver. 13. For the judgment is [will be] 
merciless. —Unmerciful is inadequate. Cf. 
Matth. v. 6; ch. xviii. 23; xxv.35. The saying 
is primarily true objectively. The judgment 


78 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


will be rigidly enforced according to the love 
displayed in our life by mercy shown to the poor, 
the suffering and the despised. But the saying 
holds also good subjectively. A hard, merciless 
man reacts by his conduct upon his own con- 
sciousness; he makes himself a hard self-tor- 
mentor, who cannot but see the judgment in all his 
experience and a merciless judicial decree in all 
judgment. 

Mercy boasteth over judgment.—The 
asyndeton intensifies the antithesis. Since κατα- 
καυχᾶσθαι with the Genitive denotes boasting one- 
self against or over (see Rom. xi. 8; Jas. iii. 14), 
ἔλεος must not be completed by θεοῦ (so Calvin, 
Bengel and al.), nor interpreted as the trium- 
phant exaltation with which mercy by its assur- 
ance of grace confounds (puts to shame) the terrors 
of the judgment (so Wiesinger), or transforms 
them into signs of redemption, as says our Lord 
(Luke xxi. 38); but it rather signifies the trium- 
phant assurance with which the evangelizing 
mercy of believers, especially that of a James, a 
Peter or a Paul or the Gentile world excelled the 
judging spirit of the Judaists, the cheerful Gospel 
excelled the gloomy Talmud, the Church of the 
world the synagogue of the Jewish quarter and 
the evangelical confession the inquisition of the 
Middle Ages, to say nothing of the triumph of 
Christian philanthropy over modern particular- 
ism. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Against the genuineness of the Epistle of 
James there is probably not raised an objection 
apparently more just than that the person of 
Christ is less prominent in it than in other Epis- 
tles and that the author occupies a comparatively 
lower Christological standpoint than the most 
famous Apostles. It certainly does not contain 
the richly developed Christology which charac- 
terizes the writings of Paul and John. The 
Christology of James in general is on a level with 
that of his brother Jude and not essentially dif- 
ferent from that of the synoptical Gospels. The 
mind of James is rather practical and ethical 
than dogmatical and speculative. Even in re- 
spect of insight into the nature of Christ there 
was among Apostolical authors doubtless a diver- 
sity of gifts, cf. 1 Cor. xii. 7, It is also very 
probable that James in his wisdom as a teacher 
deemed it more judicious to refer the readers 
whom he addressed, more to the moral precepts 
of the Gospel than chiefly to the Person of the 
Redeemer. On this account the comparatively 
few passages in which he speaks of Him with 
decision, as e.g. in ch. ii. 1, deserve the greater 
attention. On the sense of the remarkable ex- 
pression toi κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης 
see under Lxegetical and Critical. This single 
passage proves conclusively how far James was 
from conceiving Christ (as some maintain) accord- 
ing to the old-Ebionite manner to have been a 
ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος. Describing himself as the ser- 
vant (bondman) of Jesus Christ (ch. i. 1) shows 
unmistakably how far he places the Master above 
himself, and describing Him as κύριος τῆς δόξης, he 
not only attributes to Him a royal rank but, in- 
directly at least, a higher Divine nature far ex- 
alted above all creatures. Cf. Ps. cx. 1; Heb.i. 


13. Nor must we overlook his mentioning the 
Lord Jesus Christ at the very beginning of his 
Epistle in immediate connection with God Him- 
self, and his constant reference to God as the 
Father shows not indistinctly that in doing so he 
had before his mind’s eye the high and holy re- 
lation of God the Father to the Son. Of equal 
importance in estimating the Christology of 
James is the circumstance of his unequivocally 
calling Christ the Lord, that is transferring to 
Him the Old Testament name of God with which 
he was familiar from his earliest childhood; ch. 
v. 7, 8. Such an appellation was only possible 
on the convi¢tion that He, who in the Old Testa- 
ment is universally called Jehovah (Jahve), has 
revealed Himself in the New Testament as God 
(the Father) and as Christ. Cf. Wiesinger’s 
Commentary on James, p. 65, and Dorner’s 
Entwicklungsgeschichte der Christologie, 2d ed., I., 
p- 95. 

2. We should wholly misunderstand James’ 
reproof of the sin of respect of persons, were we 
to infer from it that he was aiming at the estab- 
lishment of a perfect equality in daily life or 
even in the assemblies of the Church. God Him- 
self sanctions difference of rank and station, 
Proy. xxii. 2; Matth. xxvi.11. But it is contrary 
to the will of God, if men overstep the line of de- 
marcation which He in wisdom has drawn, turn 
it into an impassable gulf and with the existing 
difference overlook the higher unity. The ar- 
rangement therefore, which especially in former 
times was so frequently prevalent in many eyan- 
gelical churches, of assigning splendid seats of 
honour to the distinguished and of putting back 
the poor as much as possible, would surely be 
contrary to the spirit of James. It is one thing 
to recognize a Divinely appointed difference, but 
it is another to make arbitrary distinction in the 
public worship of God. 

3. James. also teaches the doctrine of God’s 
eternal election of grace irrespective of wealth or 
poverty or any outward prerogatives whatsoever, 
Although it is true that poverty per se is no re- 
commendation and wealth per se presents no in- 
superable obstacle (cf. Matth. xix. 25, 26; Jno. 
xix. 38, 39), it is on the other hand not less in- 
dubitable (and also a real compensation for so 
many things of which the poor are deprived in 
this world), that comparatively by far the great- 
est number of those who are rich in faith and 
heirs of the kingdom are found among the 

oor. 

4. The idea of Christian Church-life involves 
among other things the non-existence of law- 
suits among believers, or at least the settling of 
their differences among themselves. Cf. 1 Cor. 
vi. 1-4. The readers of the Epistle of James ap- 
pear however to have been far from realizing 
this ideal, and as a rule it was just the rich who 
in this respect most oppressed their poor breth- 
ren, This is therefore an additional reason for 
not showing them any greater honour than that 
to which they were legitimately entitled. 

5. David was held guilty of haying caused the 
enemies of God to blaspheme in consequence of 
his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, 2 Sam. xii. 
14. Equally guilty are in James’ eyes those who 
by their oppressive conduct cause the goodly 
name of the Lord to be blasphemed to the 


CHAP. II. 1-18. 


79 


Church, the name which in Baptism was invoked 
over His people. This is again an indirect 
proof that he ascribes to the Lord Jesus Christ a 
really Divine dignity.— 

6. «The giving of the law on Mount Sinai took 
place mainly by the Son of God, who as the Angel 
of the Lord had led the children of Israel through 
the wilderness and is on that account called by 
the prophets King of Israel (Jer. xxiii. 5, 6; 
Numb. xxiv. 17; Jer. xxx. 21; Jno. i. 49; Rev. 
xvii. 14; xix. 16), and King of all kings; hence 
the words royal law refer particularly to Christ, 
who in His sayings and sermons did so strongly 
inculcate the duty of love (Matth. xxii. 38, 39; 
πὸ: xv. 12, 17; 1 dno. ii. 65, iv; 20, 21). Lo 
love oneself, that is in a well-ordered manner, is 
nothing else than taking care of one’s temporal, 
spiritual and eternal welfare, so that one’s spi- 
ritual welfare may also promote one’s temporal 
prosperity. This is done, if we are truly the 
servants of God, believe on Him and love Him. 
Now where this love of oneself is well-ordered, it 
is also a rule of a well-ordered love of one’s 
neighbour; see Matth. vii. 12.” Starke. 

7. “A single sin against the commandment of 
God (though he have kept all others) condemns 
the sinner and burdens him with the curse. If 
it is presumptuous and intentional, it deprives 
him of spiritual life, destroys faith, etc., as in the 
case of David by adultery, in that of Peter by 
denial and in that of Adam by eating the forbid- 
den fruit. If it is committed through infirmity 
and haste, sin as sin carries within itself the 
venom of damnableness, although preserving 
grace and forgiveness preventits execution. The 
law is, as it were, a garment, which is torn alto- 
gether, although you only take away a piece 
thereof; it is like harmony in music which is 
wholly spoiled if only one voice is out of tune.” 
Starke. 

8. “ΤΕ a man transgress only one command- 
ment and, if it were possible, should keep all the 
other commandments of the law, he would still 
be guilty of the whole law, because he has of- 
fended the same God who gave the whole law and 
insists upon its being kept not according to one 
commandment only, but wholly according to all 
its parts; whence every man may abundantly 
know that there is not any single sin so trifling 
and bad as not to be liable to damnation, since 
also the most trivial offence against the law is a 
transgression of the whole law. But God for- 
giving the penitent even the grossest offences 
in their justification, is done for Christ’s sake, 
just as in the case of the converted their daily 
sins of infirmity, although damnable in them- 
selves, for Christ’s sake are not imputed unto 
damnation.” Starke, 

9. The moral life of the Church of Christ was 
at all times exposed to the peril of two opposite 
rocks; moral rigorism on the one hand and anti- 
nomian latitudinarianism on the other. The 
doctrine of James (vv. 10-12) concerning the in- 
divisible unity of the Divine Law is admirably 
adapted powerfully to counteract both maladies. 
In no event does he favour ascetical rigorism 
which only too frequently degenerates into soul- 
killing formalism. The law for which he is 
zealous, is a law of liberty in the loftiest accept- 
ance of the term, yea the entire antithesis of au- 


thority and liberty is converted on his standpoint 
into a higher unity. The Divine law by no means 
opposes the Christian as heteronomy, but if he has 
received it through faith and love into his inmost 
consciousness, it becomes to him daily more and 
more an autonomy [heteronomy literally another 
law, then, living according to another law; 
autonomy literally one’s own law, then, living 
according to one’s own law, self-goverment.— 
M.]. Butif on the other hand latitudinarianism 
arrives only too soon at being rigid in some 
points and yielding and lenient in others, James 
stands up with inexorable severity and adminis- 
ters the unity of the Divine law as that of an in- 
divisible whole. Even the best Christian invol- 
untarily is easily inclined pharisaically to over- 
rate some commandments and to underrate 
others (cf. Matth. xxii. 86; xxiii. 23). Many ἃ 
man, 6. g. who would fear and tremble at the 
thought of murder would little hesitate in bear- 
ing false witness against his neighbour. Here 
comes in the admonition, ‘‘ Whosoever shall have 
kept the whole law yet offend in one point, has 
become guilty of all.” It is self-evident that 
James here does not speak of sins of haste, igno- 
rance or infirmity but of intentional, presump- 
tuous or principled transgressions (transgressing 
on principle) of one of the commandments. 
Whosoever has thus become guilty, has disturbed 
the harmony of the Divine law. Of course not 
in the sense that a murderer is therefore also a 
thief, an adulterer or a defamer, but because the 
transgressor of any one commandment disgraces 
love, which is the key-note and sum-total of all 
the commandments. The favourite notion of 
many people that the province of morals recog- 
nizes a greater or a smaller number of adiaphora 
therefore is here emphatically denied. He who 
obstinately transgresses one commandment with- 
out actually violating the others, omits doing so 
only because at that instant he does not feel 
himself incited to a definite act of disobedience. 
For did he feel it, he would doubtless withdraw 
himself with equal swiftness from the restraint 
of any other commandment. But where is then 
his respect of the Divine law in its totality? 
Whichever commandment be transgressed, such 
transgression always reveals selfishness opposing 
on principle the chief requirement of love. 

10. The passage, ‘‘Mercy boasteth over 
(against) judgment” (vy. 18) is not any more iso- 
lated than that it contradicts the evangelical 
doctrine of free grace. In the Old Testament 
also the idea is repeatedly expressed that love 
and mercy disarm toa certain degree the seve- 
rity of that Divine judgment. See e. g., Is. i. 
17, 18; Dan. iv. 27. John the Baptist described 
and insisted upon actual exhibitions of love as 
one of the marks of a repentance by which men 
might flee from the wrath to come, Luke iii. 8- 
11. Our Lord described the blessedness of the 
merciful (Matth. v. 7) and set forth love as the 
standard in the last judgment, Matth. xxv. 34- 
40. This is also the spirit in which James 
thinks and speaks and no further intimation is 
needed to show that he refers to no other Chris- 
tian mercy than to that which is the fruit of 
living faith and genuine renovation of the heart. 
Not only he, who loved much, may therefore 
hope for forgiveness but also he who asked for 


80 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


much forgiveness, will now also love much, and 
may look forward to the judgment with greater 
calmness because this love of faith supplies to 
him and to others unequivocal proof that he has 
passed from death unto life. Cf. 1 Jno. iii. 14. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The glorified Christ, the Lord of the Church, 
the object of faith. Sincere faith may still be 
very imperfect. Love and faith are indissolubly 
united, but love is irreconcilable with partial re- 
spectings of persons.—Agreement of the love in- 
sisted upon by James and that described by 
Paul, 1 Cor. xiii.—Rich and poor should appear 
in the house of prayer at unity among them- 
selves.—Christian liberty, equality and frater- 
nity.—The catchwords of the revolution only 
caricatures of a Gospel watchword.—The com- 
munion of saints is disgraced by lovelessriess and 
party-spirit.— Loveless judging of others ill- 
becoming to one who will be judged himself.— 
The prerogatives of the believing poor! 1, They 
are the elect of God; 2, they are rich in faith; 
8, they are heirs of the kindom of heaven which 
God has promised to them who love Him.—The 
Gospel opposed both to mobocracy [German 
‘Proletariat,’ a word always used in a bad sense; 
this must be my apology for the hybrid mobo- 
cracy.—M.] and despotism.—‘‘He that op- 
presseth the poor, reproacheth his Maker, etc.” 
Proy. xiv. 31.—Poverty evangelically consi- 
dered.—It is, 1, a great sin, 2, a great shame, 3, 
a great harm, that the goodly name of Christ, 
which was invoked over us in Baptism, is dis- 
honoured for our sake; cf. Rom. ii. 23, 24.— 
Love the foremost requirement made by the 
royal law of Christianity, Jno. xiii. 34, 85.—The 
inviolable unity of the Christian code of morality. 
—<‘‘ Whosever shall have kept the whole law, but 
have offended in one point, οἷο. This saying 1, is 
apparently strange 2, but nevertheless perfectly 
true and therefore 3, calculated to solemnize our 
minds in the judgment we pass on ourselves and 
to render us careful in that which we pass on 
others.—The Christian must not consider the 
commandments of the second table to be less 
holy than those of the first.—We shall be judged 
by the law of liberty; the meaning, the truth, 
the solemnity and consolation of this thought.— 
The connection between faith, love, judgment 
and acquittal.—The thought of the impending 
judgment—1, wherein it may alarm the Christian 
and 2, wherein it may again calm his fears. 

On the whole pericope, vy. 1-13.—Of respect of 
persons. 1. The character it discloses: it mani- 
fests itself a. among Christians (y. 1), ὁ. in reli- 
gious intercourse (vy. 2, 3) and ¢. it springs from 
impure foundations (v. 4). 2. The wrong it in- 
flicts: a, onthe poor (vy. 5), ὁ. on the rich (vv. 
6, 7), c. on ourselves (vv. 8, 9). The judgment it 
deserves; this is a. terrible (v. 10), ὁ. just (vv. 
11, 12), 6. inevitable (v. 13).— 

Srarke:—The Jews had the regulation that 
if the rich and the poor had a cause before a 
tribunal, both had either to stand or to be seated. 

QuesneL:—Godliness forbids not the differ- 
ence of posts of honour but simply disapproves 
of the rich only being respected and the poor 
despised, 1 Cor. xi. 22.—Whoso on account of 


eS ES SS eS SSS πε δὲ ee ee ee ee 


his occupation has outwardly to wear a vile gar- 
ment, let him so much the more wear the beauti- 
ful garment of Christ’s righteousness. Is. Ixi. 10. 

SrarKe:—The masses always look more at 
those who are splendidly attired before the world 
than at those who are gloriously attired before 
Christ. 

LurHer:—The rich enjoy greater privileges 
than others in things temporal, but not in things 
spiritual, Luke vi. 24. 

Lanai Op.:—There are rich in the world who 
are also rich in God, but there are also poor in 
the world who are likewise poor in God and 
these are most miserable for time and for eter- 
nity, Gen. xiii. 2. 

Hrpincer :—To bea beggar but atrue Christian 
is more than being emperor or king without it. 

CramMER:—Bodily poverty should not hinder 
but promote one’s salvation Luke xvi. 22.—Those 
who do not honour Christ in His members are not 
worthy to be honoured themselves, Luke x. 16; 
1 Sam. ii. 30. 

QuEsNEL:—There is nothing greater than the 
name of Christ, but nothing more to be feared 
than to bear it unworthily. 

Starke :—The royal law of love makes all to 
be kings, who are however the subjects of the 
King of kings, 1 Pet. 11. 9; Rey. xviii. 6. 

CrAMER:—By seeming trifles also the law 
may be transgressed, Numb. xv. 32, ete. ~ 

Nova Brsu. Tus.:—The law exacts perfect 
obedience. 

HepInGceER:—Like as the believer fulfils all 
the commandments of the law, so the ungodly 
transgresses all the commandments, 1 Jno. iii. 
22.—If any man will allow only one sin to have 
dominion over him, he cannot receive forgiveness 
of sins, Ps. xxxii. 2. 

SraRKE:—It is as culpable to be silent when 
we ought to speak as to speak when we ought to 
be silent, Is. lvi. 10. 

Lutuer :—The Divine law is the only rule of 
conduct in whatsoever we do in word or deed, 
Ps. cxix 9, 15, 22. 

QuEsnNEL:—To be unmerciful, especially to- 
wards the innocent and believers, is a sign of 
men being merely natural and consequently ex- 
posed to the wrath of God, Ps. xxxvii. 26. 

LurHer:—The unmerciful will be damned 
without mercy and the merciful will be saved of 
mercy, Jer. xv. 6; Hos. i. 6. 

Lisco (ver. 1-9):—True faith is remote from 
all sinful partiality.—(vv. 10-18). Of disobe- 
dience to the Divine law.—Christianity aims at 
equalizing the differences among men. 

Hevsner:—All haughtiness is a denial of faith. 
Unchristian distinguishing hetween sins.—What 
a contradiction! to see Christians dishonour the 
poor whom God honours.—Without esteeming and 
keeping all the commandments alike the keeping 
of this or that is worthless in the sight of God.— 
The assurance which love gives in the judgment. 

Von Gertacn:—The Apostle calls Christ the 
Lord of glory in order to show the nothingness 
of all human distinctions in His sight.—The law 
of liberty has freed us from the bondage of sin, 
from mercenary work-holiness; we should con- 
sider therefore what a testimony there will arise 
against us in the judgment if we make exceptions 
and do not keep it in voluntary and childlike love. 


CHAP. II. 14-26. 


81 


Se 5( ὁ -- -------ς-ς-ς-ς------------ ---ς-.-ςςς-. 


Srier:—The Christianity of the rich is more 
frequently ungenuine and not proof than that 
of the poor.—If a father setting out on a journey 
lays down ten commandments to be observed by 
his child during his absence, and the child re- 
serves one to be transgressed by him—dares such 
a child appear before his father and say: Father 
I have obeyed thee, nine of the ten commandments 
I have well kept! Every sin, thus reserved and 
remaining, every continuing transgression of one 
commandment given by the same God cancels 
our righteousness before the law, so that all its 
fair numbers turn into so many ciphers. 

Neanper:—Diversities and inequalities founded 
on the natural relations and organizations of 
society were not to be abrogated by Christianity 
but rendered less burdensome, they were to be 
equalized by the common bond of love and to 
become matter for the exercise of that Christian 
love. 

Vieprsanpt :—The devil has well succeeded in 
a double trick: 1. In making the rich think that 
faith is the disturber of all enjoyment and plea- 
sure, 2. In convincing the poor that faith brings 
no help. ; 

G. Nirzscu:—We do not call a negro a white 
man because his teeth are white; so none may be 
called righteous, who only speaks of righteousness 
or otherwise puts into practice some other part 
thereof. David says: ‘I keep all thy command- 
ments.”’ 

Porusszky:—Faith in Jesus Christ tolerates 
no respect of persons.—The moral harmony in 
the kingdom of God (vy. 10-12).—The taking to 
heart of Christian mercy (v. 13). 

Jacosy (v. 12):—Speaking also is subjected to 
the royal law of love.—It amounts to the same 
whether our judgment be bribed by riches in 
money, in intellect or worldly education. 

Vy. 8-13—Pericope on the 21st Sunday after 
Trinity in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and else- 
where. 

Baur:—Love as to its being and working. 

J. Miitner:—Love the being of the Christian 
life. 

R. Kromm:—The Christian is able and bound 
to keep all the commandments of his God.—Of 
the riches of Christian love. 

V. 1. Social differences are allowed among 
Christians, Rom. xiii. 7; but invidious distinc- 
tions and partiality in spiritual matters are dis- 
allowed and unchristian. In the use of the 
Sacraments, in prayer and praise, in the hearing 
of God’s Word Christians are ona level. The 
pew-system is unprimitive and unchristian. The 
Church is the Lord’s house, as its name implies 
(κυριακόν), and in the Lord’s house the rich and 
poor alike ought to be provided with equal accom- 
modation for worship without any invidious, 
unchristian and worldly reference to their pecu- 
niary ability.—Ecclesiastical preferment of per- 
sonal friends and relatives, as such, is another 
form of respectings of persons.—M. ]. 

Worpsworrs :—Contemplate the Lord of glory 
(1 Cor. ii. 8), who humbled Himself, and took the 
poor man’s nature, and joined all in Himself, 
and promises glory to humility (Luke xiv. 11; 
Jas. iv. 10). This consideration is the ground- 
work of the Apostle’s argument and exhortation. 
This is the glory which Christ Himself offers to 


| you—not the vain glory of this world, which ye 


seek by preferring the rich to the poor, and by 
having men’s persons in admiration for the sake 
of advantage to yourselves (Jude 16). 

[V. 2. Christian places of worship true syna- 
gogues (cf. συναγωγὴ and ἐπισυναγωγὴ Heb. x. 
25).—M. ]. 

[V. 4. Worpsworrn:—There are two distinct 
grounds of censure— 

1. That by this partiality they become like 
disputants in a law-suit (cf. 1 Cor. vi. 6), instead 
of being brethren: this is the rebuke in this 
clause. 

2. That they thus constitute themselves into 
judges; this is developed in what follows. 

V. 7. The name invoked over Christians ir 
Baptism and in the Benedictions (Matth. xxviii. 
29: Acts ix. 14, 21; Rom. x. 12; 1 Cor. 1.23714 
Pet. i. 17).—In the Jewish synagogue that godly 
name was blasphemed (1 Cor. xii. 3); in the 
Christian synogogue it was invoked. ἐπίκλησις in 
the language of the Church denotes the act of 
solemn invocation. See Bingham, Kecl. Ant. 15, 
1.—M.]. 

[V. 18. Curysostom:—‘ Mercy is dear to 
God, and intercedes for the sinner, and breaks 
his chains, and dissipates the darkness, and 
quenches the fire of hell, and destroys the worm 
and rescues from the gnashing of teeth. To her 
the gates of heaven are opened. She is the queen 
of virtues, and makes man like to God, for it is 
written, Be ye merciful as your Father who is in 
heavenismerciful. She has silver wings like the 
dove, and feathers of gold, and soars aloft, and 
is clothed with divine glory, and stands by the 
throne of God; when we are in danger of being 
condemned, she rises up and pleads for us, and 
covers us with her defence and enfolds us in her 
wings. God loves mercy more than sacrifice.” 
—M.]. 

ae Merchant of Venice, Act iv. 
Scene 1. 

The quality of mercy is not strain’d; 

It droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven 

Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless’d; 

It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes: 

etc.—M. ]. 


2 2. Cuaprer II. 14-26. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


The true life of faith or faith evinced by the mercy 
of brotherly love and dead faith illustrated by heart- 
less demeanour. vy. 14-17. 

Ver. 14. What doth it profit, my brethren, 
ifa man were to say etc. ?—James, having 
illuminated outward legality as lacking the prin- 
ciple of love, now takes it up as outward faith 
(Gléubigkeit) lacking both love and the energy 
of practical demonstration (Thatbeweis). The se- 
quel shows what he means by practical de- 
monstration; it is the full communion with be- 
lieving brethren in love and life. The follow- 
ing section (vv. 14-26) supports his demand by 
examples from the Old Testament. Here it 1s to 
be remembered ‘‘that with James πίστις is the 


82 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


necessary ground of σωτηρία, which is evident 
from ch. i. 18-21, but of course that πίστις which 
is not without works. In disputing the former 
delusion, James adopts his characteristic mode 
of first stating in clear and well-defined language 
the fundamental thought on which all the rest 
depends and he does it by the introduction of 
brief interrogative sentences, which reject that 
false opinion.” Huther. 

What doth it profit? The Article makes ὄφελος 
emphatic; what is the use, what profit does it 
bring? That is, all the blessing of the theocratic 
faith, ultimately also in Jesus as the Messiah, 
is lost if this faith does not lead to vital fruit. 
That faith itself is then not true; hence: ‘ir a 
MAN WERE TO SAY, THAT HE HATH FAITH. λέγῃ 
is emphatic, so also Gataker, Stier, de Wette and 
al. Although de Wette’s rendering ‘“‘IF A MAN 
PRETENDS,”’ be probably too strong, the assertion 
of Huther, that the sequel does not give the lie 
to λέγειν, is incorrect. This is certainly done 
conditionally in v. 18 where it is maintained that 
the existence of faith cannot be proved without 
works. Only thus much may be admitted, that 
James allows the faith which is merely outward 
and traditional to pass as a kind of faith, on 
account of its objective truth he cannot call it 
false, but on account of its subjective untruth he 
calls it dead and the contrast of dead and living 
shows that he distinguishes faith from faith. 
Now the faith which he calls living needs no 
further complement; it is a unit as to its living 
energy, while the faith without works, lacks 
owing to the absence of works the demonstration 
of energy of life. If we say ‘the dead body is 
without the soul,’ it does not follow that we 
think also: ‘The living man consists of body 
and soul.” Schneckenburger with reason sees 
something significant in the absence of the Article 
(ἐὰν πίστιν). Huther rightly asserts that πίστις 
does not denote here nuda ποία or professio, 
because this idea is identical with real faith in 
the opinion of the speaker; but he is wrong in 
supposing that πίστις always denotes the same 
thing in the mind of James. For saying, that 
πίστις in one is different from πίστις in another, 
amounts to nothing and it is false to affirm that 
jiducia cannot be denied even to dead faith. Why 
then is the subject of this faith uniformly the 
δίψυχος ὃ [The distinction is manifestly between 
theoretic belief unaccompanied by the practice of 
good works and vital faith abounding in good 
works. Faith is the inward, works the outward. 
Works are the outward sign and pledge, the 
demonstration of faith within. The man drama- 
tically introduced in the text has faith (v. 19), 
but his faith.is theoretic belief. There seems to 
be no necessity for making λέγῃ emphatic.—M. ]. 

But were to have no works—That is, 
the works specifically belonging to and charac- 
teristic of faith. That James particularly refers 
to the works of brotherly love, is manifest from 
the sequel. j 

Faith surely cannot.—The remarkable 
character of this proposition as contrasted with 
the doctrine that faith does save is variously 
gotten over. Some commentators emphasize the 
artice 7 before πίστις : that faith, such a faith 
[ Bede, ‘fides illa, quam vos habere dicitis””— 
M.]. In reply, Wiesinger and Huther observe 


that the Article is used, because there is a re- 
sumption of the previous idea, as ch. i. 3 with 
reference to ὑπομονή, and ch. i. 15 with reference 
to ἁμαρτία. But the resumption of the previous 
idea is sufficient to settle the point that the re- 
ference is here to such a faith which has no 
works. The demonstrative therefore is not con- 
tained in ἡ only, but in ἡ πίστις and one might 
translate, ‘‘thus faith surely cannot save him.” 
Huther thinks that αὐτόν is emphatic, “him who 
thus conducts himself, faith cannot save;”’ but 
this would make faith an abstract objectivity. 
The reference therefore is simply to the faith in 
question, and the explanations of Theile (false 
faith), Pott (faith only) and similar ones are 
epexegetical. Huther in his explication of αὐτόν 
returns to the definition ‘‘the faith which has 
no works,”’ whereas, in order to be consistent, 
he ought to say, ‘‘the man who has no works.” 

Save him.—céca relates not to the attain- 
ment of future salvation, as Huther maintains, 
but denotes, according to the idea of the New 
Testament σωτηρία the present, principial salva- 
tion of the redemption already experienced and 
passing through progressive stages of completion 
to ultimate salvation. 

Vers. 15,16. But ifa brother or a sister. 
—The following example in the opinion of Hu- 
ther (and Wiesinger) explains the preceding pro- 
position by explaining that compassion also with- 
out corresponding works is dead and useless. 
But the reference to dead love or even to dead 
compassion would be unheard of. The question 
in one example also is dead faith, which under 
certain circumstances hypocritically affects the 
appearance of love without however eyincing the 
reality of its existence. The absence of the 
work is just the absence of love or compassion. 
The brother and the sister are as such fellow- 
believers (companions of the same faith). And 
this leads to take these personages also in a sym- 
bolical sense. For the duty of relieving the 
literally needy with food and raiment was al- 
ready recognized in the Old Testament as a duty 
of man to man; how much more then under the 
sense of duty acknowledged in the Christian 
Church. James doubtless needed not to incul- 
cate this duty on the believing dispersion, and 
if it was his intention, he could not limit its ex- 
ercise to Christian brethren. But the case stood 
differently with regard to the relation of the 
Jewish Christian to his Gentile-Christian co- 
religionist or also to the Gentile-Christian 
Church. That they were not literally poor and 
naked does not affect the question, for on the one 
hand they were indebted to the Apostles, who 
were more merciful than the Judaists, for their 
spiritual prosperity, and on the other hand they 
would still appear as very poor to the Judaists; 
γύμνοι, as those wholly stripped of proper and 
respectable apparel, after having laid aside their 
vile raiment (see v. 2; Huther’s pressing of 
γύμνοι yields no gain), and destitute of daily 
food (the different senses in which ἐφήμερος is 
construed, amount to the same thing), ὁ, 6. desti- 
tute of positive familiarity with the word of God 
according to Judaistic ideas. The Jewish Chris- 
tians, to be sure, had progressed so far as not to 
damn the poor believers (even as the Jews already 
affected friendliness towards the proselytes of 


CHAP. 


II. 14-26. 88 


———— eee 


the gate); they acknowledged the brotherhood 
in a general way and perchance would unctu- 
ously express that acknowledgment in the words 
‘Go in peace,’ wished them perhaps also all 
manner of good in the self-satisfying of their (the 
poor brethren’s) Christian wants, but having 
gone to that stretch of liberality, would also dis- 
miss them, without having any other dealings 
with them or entering with them into the com- 
munion of devoted care and love (just as nowa- 
days the Confessionalists dismiss the Evangeli- 
cals with unctuous sour-sweet words). Be 
warmed! be filled! These words are surely not 
uttered optatively in the sense, ‘“‘ May some one 
else help you” (Hottinger, Grotius and al.), nor 
imperatively in a liberal sense (Huther), but 
connected with the valedictory salutation of 
peace they denote a cant-wish of blessing, ‘‘ may 
you succeed in getting warmed etc.” The re- 
proach of pauperism is at the same time clothed 
in hypocritically sparing terms, hence ‘be ye 
warmed” not at once ‘‘be ye clothed” (Lauren- 
tius and al.), but alluding to it and in like man- 
ner ‘‘be ye filled” in allusion to their hunger.— 
The one who thus speaks represents the general 
tendency but points to the unctuous speakers 
who understand to couch the unsparing dismissal 
as much as possible in fair and sparing language. 
Instead of such conduct they were one and alto- 
gether to show love to the poor. But our example 
presupposes the case that they did not even give 
them necessaries. 

What would that profit?—See νυ. 14. 
Such a benediction (wish-of-blessing) would 
purely have no value and the acknowledgment 
of brotherhood on which it is founded would ac- 
cordingly be equally void, just as the faith on 
which itis founded. The whole demeanour would 
be unprofitable ,egentibus (Hottinger) and dicenti- 
bus (Semler); in general to the kingdom of 
God. 

Ver. 17. So also faith, if it have not.— 
If it does not show the life-sign of animating 
works, which are intrinsically its property. 

For itself. [ἡ 6. im itself.—M. ]—As it is dead 
as regards the brethren, so it is dead as regards 
itself. Καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν not pleonastic (Grotius), not 
‘¢fides sola” (Knapp), but joined with νεκρά in- 
dicative of being dead or rather of having died, 
whereby the life of faith and consequently the 
life of the believer himself is denied. And this 
being dead is not only the cause of this want of 
works (Olshausen) but also the consequence of 
the reaction of that want. It dies ever more 
and more of not being energizing. See Matth. 
xviii. 28 ete. 

The proof of faith by the works of faith or the 
believer's justification before the consciousness of 
the Church, vv. 18, 19. 

Ver. 18. But some one will say.—Different 
explanations are given for the introduction of an 
objection by ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ tic, although the sense of 
the passage especially with the reading χωρὶς τῶν 
épywv is abundantly clear. The possession of 
faith without works may be asserted but not be 
proved, since the corresponding works constitute 
the proof of faith, while the faith may be proved 
by the right works. The works therefore are 
the exhibition, the evidence of faith. Difficulties 


proposition as the expression of another person 


and not as his own; 2. in his introducing it by 
ἀλλά. The second difficulty disappears with the 
first. James could not well take the place of the 
objector because it was remote from the mind of 
his readers to deny the genuineness of his faith; 
but many among them were inclined to deny it 
in the case of the Gentile Christians. Hence the 
sense is as follows: but some one will rise up 
against this dead faith and with it enter the lists 
in proving the genuineness of his faith by his 
works of faith. In this sense the passage has a 
grand prophetical character. The Gentile Chris- 
tian world has proved by its works of faith that 
it had the true faith, but Ebionism with its 
want of consistency in Christian works of love 
that its orthodoxism was not a living faith. ἀλλά 
therefore is here not the formula of a dialectical 
objection, as in Rom, ix. 19; 1 Cor. xy. 35, but 
the introduction of an actual historical antithesis, 
That the speaker’s faith (v. 14) is dead is pri- 
marily a mystery of an inward state of death, 
but there will come one who by the exhibition of 
the contrary will make manifest that death. 
James makes him express in a definite antithesis 
what he actually shall do, in order to elucidate 
the law of life that invisible faith cannot be seen 
without visible works, while the visible works 
enable us to see the invisible faith. Wiesinger 
therefore rightly maintains that the speaker 
sides with James. On the other hand the artifi- 
cial explanation of Huther can only be accounted 
for by the embarrassment he experienced with 
respect to ἀλλά. ‘But some might say in answer 
to what I have just stated, defending himself: 
thou (who hast not the works) hast faith and J, 
on the other hand (who affirm that faith without 
works is dead), have works; my one-sided in- 
sisting upon works is not any more right than 
thy one-sided insisting upon faith.” This, in the 
first place, would be no defence of the speaker 
(v. 14), and secondly it is nowhere said that the 
speaker (v. 18) has no faith; he rather wants to 
prove his faith by his works. Stier even main- 
tains that the ἔργα ἔχων, who has the word, is a 
man of pharisaic tendencies who in the interest 
of work-righteousness impugns faith; but this 
is altogether beside the connection, for there is 
no reference whatsoever to pharisaic works. On 
the other wide-differing but otherwise unimpor- 
tant explanations given of this passage compare 
Huther especially with reference to those of 
Pott, Kern, de Wette and Schneckenburger. It 
is proper to add that Huther himself farther on 
gives a tolerably correct paraphrase of this pas- 
sage and is equally right in remarking that with 
the reading’ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων in Text. Rec. these words 
should be taken ironically. 

Ver. 19. Thou believest that God is one.— 
The Apostle having shown in what precedes that 
the existence of faith cannot be proved without 
works, now proceeds to the proof that faith, even 
if granted in such a form, has a damnable effect, 
that is one issuing in fear and terror of God. 
Huther does not justly state the force of the 
Apostle’s thought in saying that James here 
shows the inadequateness of faith without works 
to salvation. For the example of the devils who 
tremble just in consequence of their manner of 


have been found 1. In James’ introducing this | believing, not only along with their faith, nor 


84 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


$n 


even notwithstanding their faith, is not simply 
designed to intensify the negation that such a 
faith is without salvation. The condition of not 
being saved is connected with the state of being 
damned. The Apostle does not start with the 
concession that the objector has faith (Huther), 
but that his faith is worthless. Huther thinks it 
strange that James does not name that which is 
specifically Christian as the object of faith. On 
this account Calvin supposed that this whole 
section treats not of Christian faith (de fide) but 
only de vulgari dei notitia. De Wette holds that 
ὅτι characterizes the faith as being merely theo- 
retical, in which Wiesinger agrees with him and 
to which Huther objects without sufficient rea- 
son. Huther and al. consider that this article of 
faith is simply introduced by way of example 
and that just this article was selected because it 
distinguishes revealed religion from heathenism 
(Deut. vi. 4; Neh. ix. ὁ etc.). But this suggests 
the additional remark that it was selected be- 
cause the Jewish Christians and the Jews not 
only were particularly proud of this first article 
of their faith (Schneckenburger), but also were 
wont to contrast it with the distinctly Christian 
dogma of the Triune God and the Son of God.— 
This discloses moreover the further consideration 
that it was their pride in this increasingly mis- 
understood article which kept them back as 
Jews from fully surrendering to Christ and as 
Jewish Christians from fully surrendering them- 
selves to the Christian faith. The monarchism 
of the Jews which was opposed to the incarnation 
of the Son of God continued in the germinating 
monarchism of the Jewish Christians. In the 
judgment of James therefore the fruitlessness or 
worthlessness of that faith is connected with the 
fact that in the shape of orthodoxism it obsti- 
nately remains at a stand-still on a stage of faith 
which has been laid aside and that in this re- 
spect it is a heterodoxy which may become a 
heresy and ultimately even a devilish antichris- 
tianity. It was just by remaining at a stand- 
still and by resistance offered to the completed 
revelation that monotheism originally so rich in 
vitality became dead deism. In a similar way 
the Greek article of faith has been established 
in opposition to Roman Catholic development, 
and the Roman Catholic article in opposition to 
evangelical faith.* Where vital development is 
abhorred (perhorrescirt 3) faith becomes false con- 
fidence in the abstract article. Wiesinger justly 
calls attention to the circumstance that this pas- 
sage shows that this Epistle is far from being 
Judaizing and anti-Pauline. 

Thou doest well.—It is questionable whether 
we are to take these words ironically (Calvin, 
Theile, Wiesinger and many others), or literally 
(Grotius, de Wette and al). They cannot be 
purely ironical, because the article is truth; 
they cannot be purely laudatory, because the 
true article. is falsely held; Huther there- 
fore rightly observes that the ironical lies in 
the whole expression; that is, in the moment- 
ary appearance as if James in conceding to the 


* If Lange alludes to the filioque in the Nicene Creed it is 
only proper to remark that the position of the Greek Church 
is sustained by Oecumenical consent, while the insertion of 
the jfilioque in the Nicene Creed has never received the 
ganction of an Oecumenical Council.—M. 


objector to believe in such a manner were there- 
with also, conceding to him the true faith. ‘This 
irony” says Wiesinger ‘rises into sarcasm in the 
combination of πιστεύουσι και φρίσσουσι.᾽ It may 
be doubted whether this conclusion is formally 
sarcastic. The sarcasm lies here in the naked 
fact itself. Formally it only flashes out in the 
splendid καὶ which connects the greatest seeming 
contradiction and which Huther rightly does not 
like to see wiped off (Theile: atqui etc.). 

The devils.—Although we must not think of 
demoniacs (Wetstein), nor of the demons in the 
demoniacs (Schneckenburger) they furnish the 
most intelligible historical proof of the otherwise 
more transcendental declaration. Huther thinks 
that the reference is to the demons or apostate 
spirits according to the view which makes the 
heathen deities demons (LXX. Deut. xxxii. 17 
ete.; 1 Cor. x. 20). But the Apostle’s saying is 
perfectly intelligible without such reference, 
which may easily lead here to confusion. For 
as far as the demons are the occasion of poly- 
theism they impugn the Unity of God but as far 
as they are conscious that they are lying and 
that the One God will visit them in judgment, 
they just appear to acknowledge the pride of 
Judaism and the defeat of heathenism. Holding 
fast to this reference we ought to pass on to the 
thought that heathenism also in its deepest de- 
mon-background is not without a monotheistic 
consciousness, and it is just this which consti- 
tutes its misery. To give to this idea a more 
popular shape it would run thus: the demons 
which as you hold inhabit and constitute the 
heathen world, are all monotheists but for that 
very reason they shudder. But if we emphasize 
the heathen element, we weaken the marked 
emphasis of the demon element, and this is the 
reason why we have doubts concerning said re- 
ference. Nor do they shudder only, because 
they expect the judgment, their judgment is al- 
ready involved in their relation to God. This 
shuddering φρίσσειν (ἅπαξ ey.) is more than 
trembling (Job iv. 15), a horror with the hair 
standing on end.— 

The two examples of the proof of faith by works 
as a general example of the unity of living faith of 
Jews and Gentiles, v. 20-26. 

Ver. 20. But willest thou to know (it)? 
—These words denote the certainty with which 
the Apostle announces the convincing proof of 
the uselessness of faith without works from the 
Holy Scriptures, the source of all certainty.—The 
© before ἀνθρωπε intensifies the censure con- 
veyed in the address, “thou empty (not as Baum- 
garten has it, simply unwise and shortsighted 
[stupid], but empty as to faith and spirtual 
strength) man,” and which ‘as applied to per- 
sons occurs only here in the New Testament” 
(Huther). It is not perchance the fiction of an 
objector but the personification of a mode of 
thinking which is introduced as an actor, y. 1 
etc. and as a speaker in y. 15. The spiritual 
emptiness of such a man corresponds to the 
spiritual emptiness or impotence and unprodue- 
tiveness of his faith. The reading ἀρχή (adve- 
cated by Wiesinger against Huther) certainly de- 
serves the preference also in respect of the sense 
because the Apostle passes from the idea of dead 
faith through the idea of unproductive faith to 


CHAP. II. 14-26. 


85 


the idea of a faith lacking the specific effect of 
faith (δικαιοῦσθαι). [Oecumenius: κενὸν ἐκάλεσεν 
ἄνθρωπον τὸν ψιλῇ τῇ πίστει αὐχοῦντα, μηδὲν τῆς 
διὰ τῶν ἔργων ὑποστάσεως κεκτημένον εἴς πλήρωσιν. 

Ver. 21. Was not Abraham our father. 
—The first example contrasts the father of faith 
himself with the false orthodoxy-righteousness 
of Judaism, just as Paul in Rom. iy. contrasts 
him with their work-righteousness, or more ac- 
curately with their pride in circumcision. Adra- 
ham, the highest theocratical authority, which 
they share with him. 

When he offered Isaac, his son.—In ex- 
plaining this difficult passage we have to start 
with the preliminary statement that δικαιοῦν 


(DIST Sept. δικαιοῦν, δίκαιον κρίνειν) gener- 


ally denotes in both Testaments: to pronownce, 
declare, set one forth as, righteous in any forum of 
justice or judgment, whether in consequence of 
proved innocence or surrender at discretion, ex- 
piation or pardon; although there are passages 
in the Old Testament in which the sense to lead 
to righteousness, to make righteous predominates, 
Dan, xii. 3; Is. lili. 11. The most important in- 
stances of the former kind of declaring righteous 
are the following passages: Luke vii. 29: ἐδὲς- 
kaiwoav τὸν ϑεόν and 1 Tim. iii. 16; ἐδικαιώθη ἐν 
πνεύματι (cf. Ex. xxiii. 7; Deut. xxv. 1; Prov. 
xvii, 15; Is. v. 28; Matth. xii. 37; Rom. ii. 13); 
instances of the latter kind occur in Rom. iy. 5; 
111. 26 etc. The comparison of these different 
passages shows that to the Old Testament with 
reference to man belongs especially the idea of 
pronouncing the innocent righteous conformably to 
his innocence, while to the New Testament belongs 
that of pronouncing the sinner righteous conforma- 
bly to his faith. Matth. xii. 37 must be carefully 
distinguished because the last judgment shall be 
a judgment of the works of faith. But even the 
Old Testament knew already the imputation of 
faith as righteousness, Gen. xv. 16. We may 
say therefore that James for the benefit of his 
readers adopts the language of the Old Testa- 
ment in allotting to true faith the imputation of 
righteousness by the λογίζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην, but 
to the proof of true faith the δικαιοῦσθαι. St. 
Paul, on the other hand, employs the two terms 
as identical (Rom. iv. 6 etc.; ch. v. 1), although 
he is well acquainted with the Old Testament 
meaning of δικαιοῦσθαι as applied to a human 
forum or even to the last judgment (see 1 Cor. 
iv. 4,5). Huther, after enumerating the dif- 
ferent interpretations of this passage (Calvin: 
proved righteous before men; Baumgarten: his 
justification has been ratified before men; Gro- 
tius: he was loved as a righteous man etc.), 
adds ‘‘he has been declared righteous;” but this 
is really saying nothing concerning our passage, 
for the question is, in which sense? The dif- 
ference in the report is noteworthy. Gen. xv. 
6 we read: Abram ‘believed in the Lord and He 
counted it to him for righteousness,” without 
any further mention of an outward declaration 
of God concerning it. Both to him and to the 
Scripture the thing is sure in virtue of the testi- 
mony of the Spirit. Very different is Gen. xxii. 
16, where the proof of Abraham’s faith is fol- 
lowed by the the solemn declaration of the angel 


from heaven, “ΒΥ myself have I sworn ete.” 
Has not this declaration become a manifest de- 
posit to the house of Abraham and the theo- 
cratic posterity? And that this is a decisive ele- 
ment is also evident from the other proof. So 
also righteousness was imputed to Rahab, the 
harlot also, not only in the depth of her heart 
but along with the proof of her faith. She did 
also experience a δικαιοῦσθαι in the congregation 
of God, Josh. vi. 25; Matth. i. 5. The term 
δικαιοῦν consequently is used by James according 
to the Old Testament mode of expression in a 
New Testament deeper sense and denotes that 
God declares righteous in the theocratical fo- 
rum before the theocratical congregation con- 
ceived as permanent. It is the Divine declara- 
tion of the proof of faith in and for the kingdom 
of God, while the λογίζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην of 
James or the δικαιοῦν of Paul describes an act, 
which transpires solely between God and the 
sinner in the forum of his consciousness. 

Justified by works: ἐξ épywv.—Although 
this Plural is selected with reference to the ca- 
tegory in question, yet it must also be remem- 
bered that the singular work ‘when he offered 
his son”’ was the culminating point which com- 
prehended all the trials of his faith. Huther 
justly finds this pronouncing righteous in Gen. 
xxii. 16; but it was not solely contained in the 
giving of the promise on the ground of that which 
he had done; he had previously received less 
developed promises and moreover in connection 
with acts of well-doing. It was rather contained 
in the solemn declaration with which God in 
consequence of Abraham’s proof of his faith 
now sealed to him His promise with an oath, 
whereby at the same time ὦ seal was set to the 
consciousness of Abraham. If the distinction 
which Holy Scripture draws between the degree 
of justification and that of sealing, had been better 
observed, the key to the doctrine of James in its 
agreement with that of Paul would thereby have 
also been better preserved (see Jesus Sir. xliy. 
20).— 

On the altar.—Offering is sacrificing as to 
its essential element; hence Luther’s version 
‘¢when he sacrificed”’ is not as wrong as Huther 
thinks; but the explanation ‘when he was going 
to sacrifice’ is tautological, unless the term re- 
ceive the doubtful interpretation of positive 
slaughtering. 

Isaac, his son.—Emphatically describing the 
greatness of the offering as in Gen, xxii. 16.— 
The example of Abraham, however, has a pecu- 
liar significance to the Jewish Christian readers 
of the Epistle. As Abraham obediently offered 
to the God of revelation his theocratic offspring 
with whom the promise seemed to be indissolubly 
connected, so were they also to learn to distin- 
guish their natural national feelings from the 
promise of God and offer them for their entrance 
into the New Covenant. 

Ver. 22. Thou seest.—We read the verse 
with the majority of commentators as an asser- 
tion and not as a question (de Wette, Lachmann 
and al.). And what then? Not, perchance, 
that the works were added to his faith, but that 
faith and works flow forth in one gush of the 
Spirit and doubly cover each other; faith was 
actively joined with his works as the foundation, 


86 


the works were reactively the completion of his 
faith. 

That faith was working together with 
his works.—Most commentators perceive here 
the antithesis, ‘(neither faith was wanting nor 
the works” (Bengel: quid utravis pars altert con- 
ferat; similarly Erasmus etc. Wiesinger.). Ac- 
cording to the opposite view the propositions are 
designed to demonstrate the necessity of works. 
Thou seest that faith was active in works and 
had to be completed by works (Estius: operosa 
fuit, non otiosa. Calvin). Huther, ‘The second 
hemistich is not in antithesis with the former, 
but constitutes its complement: faith being ac- 
tive with its works, itself reached its completion.” 
But James evidently does not wish to lay so one- 
sided an emphasis on the necessity of works; his 
object is rather to vindicate the unity of both, as 
is manifest from vv. 18 and 23, Primarily he 
demanded works as the proof of faith, he now de- 
mands them also with reference to the ἐδικαιώθη 
v. 22 as the completion of faith. The first propo- 
sition therefore stands for the proof of faith, al- 
though not as demanding the necessity of faith 
which was self-evident to him and to his readers. 
συνήργει certainly cannot mean “faith was aux- 
iliary in his doing” as Huther rightly observes 
against Hofmann and Wiesinger; nor hardly, 
“it was the συνεργός of his works, it operated 
not by itself but with his works” (Huther), 
which gives not a clear idea. Kern sought to 
avoid this dualism by taking τοῖς ἔργοις as Dat. 
commod., ‘‘it operated to the production of his 
works.” σύν joined with the verb may be con- 
strued as having additional force, ἡ, 6. along with, 
but also intensivo-synthetically, 1. e. united to, joined 
with (not to mention that it may mean: quite, 
thoroughly, συντέμνω ete.) Mark xvi. 20 etc. We 
take the passage in the latter sense thus: ‘Faith 
manifested itself operatively at one with the works.” 
Faith aided in the completion of the work and 
the work aided in the completion of faith.— 

Faith was made complete.—éreAify is 
taken by many as completed proof, that is decla- 
ratively (Calvin, Bengel etc.), against which 
rendering Huther with reason insists upon the 
expression, ‘‘it was completed,” not in the sense 
it had been imperfect but that it was consum- 
mated in the exercise. But here again we have 
to remind the reader of the significance of the 
term τελείωσις in this Epistle (cf. ch. i. 4, 25; iii. 
2; v. 11). Abraham by his faith-offering at- 
tained typically and ideally the τελείωσις, which 
the Jewish Christians were to attain by the full 
proof of Christian love out of [as the ground and 
source of—M.] faith and with them all Israel 
was to attain it. 

Ver. 23. And [thus] the Scripture was 
fulfilled.—That is the passage Gen. xv. 6 here 
cited from the Sept. (with the exception of dé for 
καί) which gives a passive rendering to the active 
language of the original. So Paul quotes the 
LXX. Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 6. James, it is evi- 
dent from this declaration, was fully cognizant 
of the predication of that passage concerning 
Abraham’s righteousness of faith and was far 
from disputing it. But on that account, as Hu- 
ther rightly maintains, we are unable to adopt 
the definition of ἐπληρώθη which is given by the 
majority of commentators, viz.: then was con- 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


Jirmed, or that of Hofmann: then was proved that 
God had rightly estimated the faith of Abraham 
(Wiesinger, “then it was shown. (erwiesen) that 
the Scripture was right’’). The meaning of 
πληροῦν forbids such definitions. Moreover, 
strictly speaking this saying cannot be referred 
to the written declaration of Holy Scripture but 
to the Divine act on which that declaration is 
founded, ἡ. 6. the λογίζεσθαι, or to the prophetical 
sense of believing Abraham himself. But, on the 
other hand, we cannot adopt the exposition of 
de Wette and Huther, ‘“‘then was realized,” for 
that righteousness of faith was a reality from the 
very first. The fulfilling denotes throughout the 
completed, decided and manifested development 
of a seed of faith which until then was germ-like 
concealed, whether it be a prophecy or a type 
(cf. Matth. ii. 15; v. 23 ete.; 1 Kings ii. 27 etc.). 
That righteousness of faith of Abraham reached 
its πλήρωσις or τελείωσις in its proof and verifica- 
tion, as it was sealed by the now openly stated 
Divine testimony. The act of faith itself and the 
subsequent sealing in the life of individual be- 
lievers answer to the Old Testament Abrahamic 
foundation and the New Testament completion. 
That proof and verification of faith was on its 
real side τελείωσις, while, on its ideal side viewed 
as the completion of the prophetical word of the 
Spirit on which the written word is founded, it 
was πλήρωσις. And this πλήρωσις was manifested 
in his being called the friend of God. Not liter- 
ally but substantially he was honoured with that 
appellation from the beginning Gen. xxii, 16, and 
afterwards also was referred to in the Old Testa- 
ment as the beloved of God 1 Chron. xx. 7; Is. 
xli. 8. This honourable appellation has devel- 
oped the epithet ‘‘the friend of God” among the 
Jews and the Mohammedans (Wolf’s curx, and 
Theile.) [‘‘#l-Khalil-Allah” or, as he is more 
usually called, ‘‘#-Khalil,” simply ‘the friend,” 
‘ds a title which has in Mussulman countries su- 
perseded altogether his own proper name.” 
Stanley’s Jewish Church p. 14. ‘‘Abraham is the 
Zoroaster of the Semitic race; but he is more 
than Zoroaster, in proportion as his sense of the 
Divine was more spiritual, and more free from 
the philosophy of nature and the adoration of 
the visible world.”” Punsen, Bibelwerk, I1., 88. 
See also Max Miiller’s Essay on Semitic Monothe- 
ism in the London Times of April 14 and 15, 
1860.—M.]. ‘In Gen. xviii. 17 the LXX. add 
the words τοῦ παίΐδος μου to ἀπὸ ᾿Αβραάμ, for which 
Philo substitutes τοῦ φίλου wov.”” Huther. Hofmann 
defines the expression ‘the friend of God,” by 
‘‘who loved God,” while Huther disputes that 
definition and gives the opposite one ‘‘ whom God 
loved.” But both entangle themselves in a 
false antithesis. The friend is at once loving 
and loved and indissolubly so. And although it 
remains a fixed fact that Abraham’s love was the 
consequence of God’s love to him, it is also evi- 
dent that Abraham’s good conduct, that is his 
self-sacrificing love, is intended to be brought 
out. But he was not only made ‘the friend of 
God” (Grotius é«A/@y7—factus est), but he was 
called and honoured as such. And this was the 
way in which he was ἐδικαιώθη for the kingdom 
of God. Wiesinger’s assertion is therefore in- 
correct that δικαιοῦσθαι refers to rightcousness 
before God and not (as Calov and al.) to right- 


CHAP. II. 14-26. 


87 


eousness before men. But this ‘righteousness 
before men” requires to be defined in the man- 
ner indicated above. 

Ver. 24. Ye see that by works a man is 
justified. Out of (ἐξ ἔργων) works.—The prepo- 
sition is not interrogative (Griesbach), nor im- 
perative (Erasmus), but indicative (Luther). 
Recollecting that δικαιοῦται here as in Υ, 21 does 
not refer to justification by faith before God, but 
to the proof of faith before the congregation or 
the forum of the kingdom of God (in the sense of 
being declared righteous to the world, cf. 1 Tim. 
iii. 16), the seeming opposition of this passage 
to Rom. iii. 28 and al. is set aside. Per se 
therefore μόνον might be connected with δικαιοῦται 
thus ‘‘not only by faith but by works a man is 
justified,’ but firstly this would not give a pure 
antithesis as in v. 18, and secondly, the preposi- 
tion v. 26 could then not follow. μόνον therefore 
must be joined adjectively with πίστεως in the 
sense of bare faith, faith without works (so 
Theophylact, Grotius, Wiesinger, Huther and al. 
ef. 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. xi. 23 and other pas- 
sages). 

Ver. 25. But likewise, Rahab, the harlot. 
—0oé indicates the contrast between the two 
examples, ὁμοίως their similarity. The contrast 
comes out strongly in the fact that Rahab was a 
harlot. The Article denotes that she was the 
historically known personage without intensify- 
ing the idea which however must not be weakened 
by the exposition ‘‘hospita” (Lyranus) or 
‘‘idolatra”’ although she was both in reality 
(Rosenmiiller). But the circumstance that she 
was a Gentile is implied. The supposition of de 
Wette and al. that this example was chosen with 
polemical reference to Heb. xi. 31, because there 
she is praised on account of her faith, Wiesinger 
rejects with the appropriate observation that 
there as here it is the work-proof of her faith 
which is rendered prominent, as indeed the whole 
chapter (Heb. xi) lauds faith as the power of 
conduct well pleasing to God. Wiesinger (fol- 
lowing Calvin) also brings out the real motive 
for the selection of this example. To the example 
of Abraham, who was the prototype of all true 
faith, is now added another as remote from it as 
possible, “‘that of a woman, a Canaanite, a 
harlot.”” The Apostle’s motive, however, must be 
taken even more concretely. Doubtless Rahab 
stands here as the representative of Gentile 
Christians in their works of faith. Just as 
Abraham by the sacrifice of Isaac, from being a 
Jew, hedged in by his nationality, hecame the 
patriarch of the spiritual Israel, a pattern to the 
Jewish Christian readers of this Epistle, so the 
case of Rahab is an example drawn from the Old 
Testament of the ability of Gentiles becoming by 
means of their work of faith the spiritual com- 
panions of Abraham and his children. Now she 
was justified not only in that her life was spared 
(Josh. ii. 6, 22 ete.) but in that she became a highly 
honoured mother in Israel, as tradition informs 
us (Matth. i. 5). 

When she received the messengers.— 
One might always think that James selected the 
word ἄγγελοι instead of κατάσκοποι (Heb. xi, 31) 
in allusion to the circumstance that the Gentiles 
of his time were so ready to receive the messen- 
gers of the Gospel. Although the ὑπό of the 


verb may not have the secondary meaning ‘ clam 
excipere,” (Theile) still it suitably intensifies the 
idea. She hospitably received the messengers 
and sheltered them, she received them forthwith, 
as the Gentiles received the messengers of the 
Gospel rejected and persecuted by the Jews. 

And sent them forth by another way.— 
Cf. Josh. ii. 15. It is not simply that she let 
them go, but that she thrust them off with saving 
haste and effort, as it were by force. So Festus 
the Gentile sent Paul to Rome in order to deliver 
him from the persecutions of the Jews and so for 
atime the Roman rulers in general, but espe- 
cially believing Gentiles protected the messengers 
of the Gospel from the fanaticism of the Jews. 
The way of the deliverance of the messengers, 
however, was not only another way, but an un- 
common one (ἑτέρᾳ ὁδῷ [1. 6. διὰ τῆς Oupidoc.—M. ]). 

Ver. 26. For as the body without spirit. 
—The spirit can only describe the constant, 
inward vital principle (and in its actuality), 
which gives motion to the living body. Conse- 
quently not the soul as a quiescent substance, 
nor that which animates (Wiesinger), and still 
less the πνεῦμα as ‘‘halitus”’ (Piscator and al.). 
The spirit in its actuality is the ἐνέργεια of the 
body, without which it is dead. By comparison 
therefore faith is dead without (corresponding) 
works. It is an unnatural condition for the 
body to exist without spirit; consequently the 
reference here is to a faith which has passed 
into an unnatural condition. James, therefore, 
cannot mean that works must be added to faith; 
he rather sees in the works (with the Article), the 
collective phenomenon, that form of life which 
renders visible the vitality of faith, its animating 
energy (although not absolutely love, as Theile 
maintains) or entelechy. The seeming incon- 
cinnity of the figure, to which Huther calls 
attention, that while on the one hand, the body 
is visible and the spirit invisible, faith on the 
other is invisible and the works visible, disap- 
pears if it is remembered that the spirit also in 
virtue of its actuality effects the higher visibility 
of the body. Being dead and being alive is the 
decisive antithesis, in which, however, the separ- 
ate members also are brought into comparison. 
James is therefore far from forming a dualistic 
conception of real faith, he rather takes it really 
as a productive power much as Aristotle does the 
idea, and with reference to public proof he will 
recognize it only in its expression by works 
which almost recalls Hegel’s idea that the true 
in the individual authenticates itself in its process 
of development as fact. 

James’s doctrine of faith in this chapter in relation 
to the doctrine in Rom. iii. 28; Gal. ii. 16, and al. 
—We refer in the first place to the Introduction, 
to the foregoing exegesis, to our exposition in the 
History of the Apostolic Age, I., p. 171; and in 
the next place to Huther, p. 126, and the Supple- 
ment to his Commentary, p. 208. Huther, with 
reason enumerates three views. 1. James and 
Paul agree in thought but differ in expression. 
This was the prevalent view before the Refor- 
mation, and in modern times the view of Neander, 
Thiersch, Wiesinger, Huther, etc. 2. The doc- 
trine of James contradicts that of Paul. So 
Luther, de Wette, Kern, Baur, Schwegler. 3. 
There is certainly a difference in doctrine of 


88 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


subordinate importance yet without prejudicing 
their higher unity. So Schmid (Bibi. Theol.), 
Lechler, Weizsiicker (see the last supplement in 
Huther, also the controversy with Weiss and 
Weizsicker, p. 180, 131). Ad 1. Theophylact 
and others. The ἔργα are different in both in- 
stances, Paul mentions the opera legis, James the 
“opera fidei.” ** This is also right,” as Huther 
correctly observes. Paul deals with the ergism 
of the Jews, James with their orthodoxism. 
Huther moreover urges with reason that Paul 
does not attribute justifying power to the opera 
fidei. A second distinction in the idea of πίστις 
was therefore necessary. This has been pointed 
out by Oecumenius, Neander and al.; viz. “that 
James takes faith per se simply as the mere notitia, 
the considering things as true etc.” It is evident 
that he knows such a kind of faith but. it is 
equally certain that he does not acknowledge it 
as living faith; not any more than Paul, who 
was equally familiar with Jewish orthodoxy 
according to Rom. x, but insisted with equal 
firmness, that faith must work by love or authen- 
ticate itself by works (Gal. v. 6). Wiesinger 
(with whom Huther agrees), however, is right 
in maintaining against Schmid, Olshausen, Ne- 
ander and al., that it is one thing to say ‘‘to 
become righteous by (out of ) faith authenticated 
(proved) in works,” and another ‘‘to become 
righteous by works in which faith authenticates 
itself.” This brings us to the third and most 
important distinction, the different senses of 
δικαιοῦσθαι. Here Wiesinger and Huther also go 
asunder. Wiesinger (in connection with Hof- 
mann) maintains that man, having been justified 
by faith, becomes personally righteous by his 
works in which faith authenticates itself: that 
justification in relation to God becomes a justifi- 
cation according to a man’s behaviour towards 
God. Huther, on the other hand, holds that by 
δικαιοῦν Paul describes that declaring righteous 
or free [ἡ. 6. from guilt and punishment, German 
Freisprechen—M. ] on the part of God which puts 
the believer into the new filial relation to God, 
whereas James understands by it that declaring 
righteous or free on the part of God in virtue of 
which the man regenerated into a child of God 
receives in the judgment σωτηρία. But the two 
views are not quite clear. In the first the idea 
of the forum is wanting, where the δικαιοῦσθαι is 
to take place, in the second the forum of the last 
judgment is improperly anticipated. It is of 
course understood, that according to Paul also, 
men will be judged in the last day with reference 
to their fruits of faith (2 Cor. v. 10), but in that 
judgment Abraham also has not yet stood, where- 
us on the other hand righteousness of faith and 
σωτηρία along with it, are acquired only in an 
ideal judgment. But between the first Divine 
forum in a repenting conscience and the last 
forum in the judgment of the world there lies as 
a middle forum the public attestation of the 
believer in the consciousness of the theocratic 
congregation; outwardly to the Church an au- 
thentication, inwardly to believers a sealing. 
By the selection of the term, therefore, James 
wished the Jewish Christians to understand that 
with the Church he could not acknowledge them 
as believers, if they were lacking the full consis- 
tency of Christian deeds. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Both according to James and Paul (Rom. i. 
16, 17) the doctrine of the sinner’s justification 
before God is one of the principal docirines of 
the Gospel. The question of the true Israelite 
‘*What shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” 
(Matth. xix. 16; Mark x. 17; Luke x. 265), 
rightly considered, is the most vital question for 
every sinner desirous of salvation. It is so 
much the more melancholy that the dispute con- 
cerning the doctrine of justification by faith (out 
of faith), or of justification by (out of) works has 
in every century of the Christian era given rise 
to so much misunderstanding and called forth so 
many attempts to show that James and Paul are 
irreconcilably contradicting one another. How 
little the doctrine of the one differs from that 
of the other, if we understand the meaning 
which each attaches to the terms faith, works 
and justify, has been sufficiently illustrated in 
the exegesis of this passage. See ‘‘ Exegetical 
and Critical.’”’—Considering this, we cannot but 
regard the well-known opinion of Luther on the 
epistola straminea, which is partly based on 
James’ doctrine of justification, as the fruit of an 
unfortunate misunderstanding. Nor do we find 
in these propositions of James any positive eppo- 
sition to the doctrine of the great Apostle of the 
Gentiles. But we hold it to be very conceivable 
that Paul’s doctrine of justification was either 
involuntarily misunderstood or designedly per- 
verted into an excuse for the flesh by the readers 
of the Epistle of James and that he was on that 
account constrained powerfully to oppose those 
who degraded the doctrine of grace into a cloak 
of sin. He therefore contends not against Paul 
but against a one-sided Paulinism, which in 
some hands might easily turn into unchristian 
Antinomianism and an unholy spirit of emancipa- 
tion. Both James and Paul are well entitled to 
a hearing and every view or consideration of the 
way of salvation, which silences the one at the 
expense of the other, is decidedly unfair. Paul’s 
preaching is glad tidings to all who are con- 
scious of the absolute impossibility of being 
saved by their own virtue and strength, and the 
exhortation of James is a wholesome corrective 
for all who are apt to forget what Paul himself 
did teach that true faith must work by love 
(Gal. vy. 6). Paul sets into prominent relief the 
great antithesis of grace and sin, James (as well as 
our Lord, Jno. xiii. 17) that of knowing and doing. 

2. It is of the utmost importance that while, 
on the one hand, justification and sanctification 
must be distinguished the one from the other, on 
the other hand the one must never be separated 
from the other. The true preaching of the Gos- 
pel involves the necessity of Christ in all His 
fulness being set forth both in us and for us. If 
justification and sanctification are confounded, 
or if the latter is made the foundation of the 
former we open the door to self-righteousness ; if 
justification and sanctification are separated, we 
deliver an open passport to injustice. The true 
union of the ‘‘for us” and the ‘‘in us” requires 
that justification be put first, but that sanctifiea- 
tion be neither put in the background nor in the 
foreground. 


CHAP. IL 14-26. 


89 


——— 
«--τττὸ»:----ς--ς- eeeeeeeeeSeSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSMMsmmMsssFesFFMFFMMsesesesesee 


38. What James says concerning the faith of the 
devils (v. 19) is important on several considera- 
tions 1. As affording proof of the existence of 
personal, self-conscious evil spirits. 2. As af- 
fording proof of their original goodness and 
communion with God, which consequently shuts 
out indirectly all reference to dualism in the 
question of the origin of moral evil. 3. As af- 
fording proof of the infinite misery of the fallen 
angels; to have a faith which yields no consola- 
tion but only excites terror and shuddering, must 
probably be the highest degree of misery. 4. As 
indicating the low and sad standpoint occupied 
by one who confesses the Gospel without the ex- 
hibition of love-working Christianity; his stand- 
point is not Christian but devilish. 

The way of acquiring the favour and friendship 
of God in all great essential features was virtu- 
ally the same under the Old Covenant as under 
the New. The example of Abraham, in particu- 
lar (Gen. xy. 1-6), which is also used by Paul 
(Rom. iv.) exhibits this unity of the way of sal- 
vation under both Testaments in the clearest 
manner. 

5. The case of Rahab, the harlot, who is intro- 
duced as a pattern to the believers in Christ 
Jesus (cf. also Heb. xi. 31), affords a striking 
proof that God exalts the mean and regards the 
miserable and exhibits a lofty memorial of the 
spiritual emancipation and exaltation of woman 
by Christianity. It is wonderful that just the 
most fallen and disgraced women of the Old Tes- 
tament are preferred to honour in the New. Do 
not even Thamar and Bathsheba shine in the 
genealogy of our Lord? Matth. i. 

6. ‘Whatever is transitory is only a simili- 
tude.” Nature the symbol of grace, the body 
permeated by the spirit the figure of living and 
active faith, but the cold corpse also is the re- 
presentative of a merely outward form of spiritual 
life, from which life itself has vanished. 

7. “If James calls faith without works a dead 
faith, he surely cannot mean that the works, the 
outward and the visible render faith living and 
that they constitute the life of faith but he had 
to presume that true faith includes [carries 
within itself] life, the animating principle, from 
which the works must emanate, and that this 
must make itself known in the works. He con- 
siders the want of works as proof of the want of 
vital faith and therefore he calls such faith a 
dead faith.” Neander. 

8. Luther (in his Exposition of 2 Pet. Ed. 
Irmischer, Vol. LXX., p. 223 sq.) excellently 
says concerning the fruits of faith: “although 
they belong to our neighbour, in order that they 
may redound to his benefit, yet does that fruit 
not fail because itt makes fuith stronger.—It is 
therefore altogether a very different strength 
than bodily strength for it decreases and is con- 
sumed; but this spiritual strength, the more we 
exercise and practise it, the stronger it grows, 
and it decreases if it is not practised.” 

[V. 14. On the error which James combats, 
compare the following passage from Tertullian 
(‘de Poenit’ c. 5): «Some persons imagine that 
they have God if they receive Him in their heart 
and mind and do little for Him in act; and that 
therefore they may commit sin, without doing 
violence to faith and fear; or in other words 

7 


that they may commit adulteries, and yet be 
chaste, and may poison their parents, and yet 
be pious! Atthe the same rate they who commit 
sin and yet are godly, may also be cast into hell 
and yet be pardoned! But such minds as these 
are offshoots from the root of hypocrisy and 
sworn friends of the evil one.” 

V. 16. There is opus fidei, the work of faith ; 
fides que operatur, faith that worketh; that is St. 
Paul’s faith (1 Thess. i. 3; Gal. ν. 6), and faith 
that can show itself by working, that is St. 
James’s faith (ii. 18). And without works it is 
but a dead faith, the carcase of faith; there is 
no spirit in it. No spirit, if no work; spectrum 
est, non spiritus: a flying shadow it is, a spirit it 
is not, if work it do not. Having wherewith to 
do good, if you do it not, talk not of faith, for 
you have not faith in you, if you have wherewith 
to show it and show it not. Andrewes. 

V. 20. Beveridge (on Art.12 “of good works’’): 
‘Though it be for our faith only, and not for our 
works that God accepts us, yet our works as well 
as faith are acceptable unto God, yea, and they 
necessarily spring out from a true and lively 
faith, so that it is as impossible there should be 
true faith without good works, as that there 
should be good works without true faith: for ag 
without faith our works are bad, so without works 
our faith is dead. And thereforea true faith may 
be as evidently known by its works, as a tree is 
clearly discerned by its fruit [Article I2 of the 
Articles of Religion established in the Church of 
England and Prot. Epise. Church in the United 
States reads as follows: ‘Albeit that good works, 
which are the fruits of faith and follow after 
justification, cannot put away our sins and en- 
dure the severity of God’s judgment: yet are 
they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, 
and do spring out necessarily of a true and 
lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively 
faith may be as evidently known, as a tree dis- 
cerned by the fruit.’—M.]. If I see fruit grow- 
ing upon a tree, 1 know what tree it is, upon 
which such fruit grows. And so if I see how a 
man lives, I know how he believes. If his faith 
be good, his works cannot but be good too; and 
if his works be bad, his faith cannot but be bad 
too; for wheresoever there is a justifying faith 
there are also good works, and wheresoever there 
are no good works there is no justifying faith.” To 
this last statement Wordsworth adds the follow- 
ing judicious modification. ‘‘Supposethe case of 
a person who has been baptized, and has a Lively 
faith and earnest resolve to serve God, and that 
he is suddenly taken away from this life, with- 
out having time to show his faith by his works. 
Or suppose the case of an infant dying after bap- 
tism. Then Faith saves. No man can do good 
works without Faith; but faith without works 
saves a man, if God thinks it fit to remove him 
out of this life, without giving him time for work- 
ing, and if God knows that lie would have worked,,. 
if he had had time for working. Indeed in such 
a case Furth itself is work; according to our: 
Lord’s saying, This is the work of God, that ye 
believe on Him, whom He sent’”’ (Jno. vi. 28, 29). 

V. 25. Wordsworth. <‘Rahab received the 
spies, who were sent before Joshua, the type of 
Jesus, and who were types of the Apostles of 
Christ, and hearkened to their message and sent 


90 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


them forth in speed (ἐκβαλοῦσα) by a cord, by 
another way (other than that by which they had 
come), viz. by the window, from which she tied 
the scarlet cord by which they were let down 
(Josh. ii. 15-18), and thus obtained deliverance 
for herself and family by her faith, when her 
city was destroyed. Thus she was an example 
very applicable to those whom St. James ad- 
dressed, who, by receiving the Gospel preached 
by the Apostles, might escape the woes impend- 
ing on Jerusalem, as she escaped those which 
fell upon Jericho (cf. Heb. xi. 31), and who 
would be overwhelmed in that destruction, if 
they neglected so great salvation.’’—M. ]. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 

The Christian utility-principle.—Faith with- 
out works.—A faith that cannot save us, cannot 
possibly be the true faith.—Love the touchstone 
of faith.—Pious works behind which lurks not 
seldom hardness of heart.—Those who unwit- 
tingly communicate to other their temporal 
goods prove thereby that they received of their 
God only little or nothing of spiritual goods.— 
The contention of dead and living faith.—Un- 
fruitful monotheism.—The faith of devils in its 
infinite diversity 1, from the faith of good angels 
and 2, from the faith of believing Christians.— 
Abraham the true friend of God: 1. God calls 
and Abraham obeys, 2. God promises and Abra- 
ham confides, 8. God tries and Abraham stands 
fast.—The friendship of God compared with the 
friendship of the world. What the friend of 
God shuns, enjoys and expects. Why is it just 
faith, provided it be living and active, which 
makes the sinner so well-pleasing to God? An- 
swer: 1. Because of the honour it gives to God, 
2. because of the struggle it costs us, 5. because 
of the fruit it bears for the benefit of others.— 
Rahab, the harlot of Jericho a guide to the 
heavenly Jerusalem.—What the sight of a corpse 
suggests to a believer of the Gospel.—According 
to James also the sinner is justified not propter, 
sed per fidem. 

On the Pericope. Commendation of a living 
faith; 1. The sense in which James exhorts us 
thereto, 2. The connection of his doctrine with 
the doctrine of the Gospel, and in particular 
with that of Paul. 8. The importance it will 
always have and has now. a. There are men 
who have neither faith nor works; ὃ. others 
who have works without faith; c. others again 
who have faith without works; and d. many 
whose faith and works leave much to be wished 
for. For each one of these diseases and one- 
sidednesses the ever-repeated consideration of 
James’ doctrine is wholesome medicine. 

Srarke:—To boast of faith without having it, 
is very common, Tit. i. 16.—Neither true faith 
nor true love consists in bare words, 1 Jno. iii. 
17, 18.—We usually refer the poor to the Proyi- 
dence of God and it is just this Providence that 
refers them to us, 1 Tim. vi. 18.—A rich man 
ought to rejoice in being God’s hand, whereby to 
do good to the poor;—Prov. 111. 27, 28.—Saving 
faith is not either dead or living, but it is only 
and always living and this is properly true faith; 
whereas dead faith is properly not true but false 
faith. But apart from the article of justifica- 


tion both agree in this respect, that just as true 
and living faith consists of three parts, viz. 
knowledge, assent and trust, so false and dead 
faith consists of these three parts but its know- 
ledge is only historical, its assent only human 
and its trust only carnal or a conceit of God’s 
grace drawn in carnal assurance, Matth. vii. 21, 
22; Luke xiii. 25.—Works are not the life or 
soul of faith but only an infallible mark of the 
same, Heb. xi. 8, 17.—The devils believe and 
know in particular four articles of our faith, 
Matth. viii. 2,9. They know 1. that there is a 
God, 2. that there is a Christ, 3. that there will 
be a final judgment, 4. that they will then be 
tortured. But this knowledge does not minister 
to their peace and salvation, but to their alarm 
and damnation. 

Hepincer:—lIf true faith consists only in 
knowledge and outward assent, the devil also is 
a believer and consequently blessed, 1 Jno. ii. 
3, 4. 

Luruer :—Not fear and terror, but joy, peace 
and consolation in the conscience work true 
faith, Rom. vy. 1. 

QuEsNEL:—Even the devil is not an atheist; 
what then are we to think of those who boast 
that they believe nothing and are not afraid of 
anything? Ps. xiv. 1.—Some hope to be saved 
by a faith which does less to them than the faith 
of devils, Job xxi. 12, 13. : 

Laneu Op.:—The emptier a vessel, the more 
does it sound and resound; justso the hypocrite 
who lacks faith, Ps. xciy. 4. 

QuresNEL:—Works live by faith as by the spirit 
which animates them, Rom. xiv. 23. 

LurHer:—Works do not make us righteous 
but cause us to be declared righteous, Luke xvii. 
9, 10.—All the world has admired the offering 
of Abraham; what may not come to pass, since 
God has offered His own Son? Rom. vy. 8; viii. 
32.—Faith is the mother who gives birth to the 
virtues, as her children. 

SrarRKE:—All true believers are the friends of 
God and this is the peculiar prerogative of be- 
lievers of the New Testament, Jno. xv. 14, 15.— 
The faith of converted Jews and Gentiles is uni- 
form, Acts xv. 19.—The grace of God does not 
charge us with past transgressions, if we are con- 
verted, 1 Tim. i. 18.—The weak faith of a Rahab 
must be as active as the most perfect faith of 
Abraham, Rom. iy. 19, 20. 

Lanoeu ΟΡ. :—This is the only right and safe 
way to seek righteousness, which enables us to 
stand before God, solely by faith in Christ out 
of His merit so that that faith be also actively 
shown by love, Phil. iii. 9; Gal. v. 6. 

Hevusner:—Unfruitfulness betrays the un- 
genuineness of faith.—Love never complains of 
want of ability; the stronger love, the greater 
the ability.—Dead faith is no faith. 

Avaustine:—Such faith is a palsied hand.— 
The faith of Abraham was imputed to him for 
righteousness, before it had brought forth works, 
but it was a living faith, in which the works lay 
as to the germ.—Works per se are not the spirit, 
but the faith moving in the works, is spirit. 

Von Gertacn:—What James calls faith with- 
out works is properly speaking no faith at all; 
not any more than a love which deals only in 
pleasant words, is love (vy. 15).—Paul opposes 


CHAP. IE 14-26. 


the antithesis of dead work-holiness, James the 
antithesis of a pharasaic pride in empty intel- 
lectual knowledge.—Paul met the Pharisees with 
precisely the same argument, cf. Rom. 11. 6-11; 
xili. 27.—Man is not justified by (out of ) faith 
separable from works, not any more than fire (6. 
g. painted fire) separable from heat and light is 
able to warm and light us. 


Lutuer:-—O, faith is a lively, ite active 
thing, so that it is impossible for it not to be 
ceaselessly working good! It does not ask either 
if good works are to be done, but before it asks, 
it has done them and is ever doing. But whoso 
doeth not such works, is an unbelieving man, 
gropes and looks out for faith and good works, 
and neither knows what is faith nor what are good 
works, but for all chatters and talks much of faith 
and good works. Faith is a living, well-weighed 
assurance of the grace of God, so sure, that he 
would a thousand times die for it, and such assur- 
ance and knowledge of Divine grace renders men 
glad, daring and merry before God and all crea- 
tures, which is the work of the Holy Ghost in 
faith. Hence man becomes without constraint 
ready and glad to serve everybody, to suffer 
many things to the praise of God and from love 
of God who has been so gracious to him, so that 
it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea 
as impossible as it is to separate burning and 
shining from fire. 


Strer:—James by no means affirms that works 
give life to, produce or create faith; for faith 
comes by the power of the word, entering into 
and. received by us and by nothing else. But 
faith grows complete in works, that is the same 
as Paul’s saying or rather the Lord’s saying to 
Paul, that the strength of God may be completed 
in weakness (2 Cor. xii. 9). The strength of 
faith, indwelling from the beginning and already 
received along with the first seizing of grace, 
becomes fully proved, verified and its operation 
completed. Thus our calling and election are 
made sure in the diligence of living and doing 
(2 Pet. i. 10). Thus Abraham’s first call was 
made sure in his last works and the word con- 
cerning justification by (out of) faith already 
before accorded to him, was lawfully and actu- 
ally confirmed as a truth. 


VieEDEBANDT:—A faith which helps not our 
neighbour, neither helps ourselves, for it has not 
helped us to love.—Before faith are the tears of 
Peter and after faith the following after of Paul. 

Jaxospi:—A sacred author tells us of true 
faith that it is the firm confidence of things hoped 
for. But the faith of the devils is an assurance 
not of what they hope for, but of what they fear. 


Porusszky:—Dead faith cannot save. This 
is evident 1. from the being of blessedness, 2. 
from the nature of dead, 3. from the experience 
of daily life-—Living faith justifies and saves 
(Reformation-Sermon). Cf. art. 20 of the Augs- 
Surg Confession. 

Lisco:—Faith and works.—Operative faith 
justifies us before God.—True Christian faith a 
sanctifying power of life. 

[v. 17. Hatu:—As that is a vain and idle 
charity, which bids a man be warm and filled, 


yet gives him nothing to feed or warm him with, 


91 


ing an adherence to God, yet is severed from all 
good works and is void of charity.—M. ]. 

[v. 21. HamMonp:—Abraham was the father 
of the faithful, the great example of faith and 
justification; but it was not upon his bare belief 
of God’s promise that he was justified, but upon 
that high act of obedience to God, in being ready 
to offer up his only son, in whom the promises 
were made to him.—M. ]. 

[v. 238. Apam CrarKe:—As among friends 
everything is common, so God took Abraham 
into intimate communion with Himself, and 
poured out upon Him the choicest of His bless- 
ings; for as God can never be in want, because 
He possesses all things, so Abraham, His friend, 
could never be destitute, because God was his 
friend.—M. ]. 

y. 24. Horne:—In this instance of the father 
of the faithful, as in a common centre, are the 
doctrines of both Apostles met: one says a man 
is justified by faith working; the other by 
working faith; and this is really and truly all 
the difference between them.—M. ]. 

[v. 26. Brigur:—Justification then by faith, 
or according to the Christian doctrine as opposed 
to the law, must be that all men being sinners 
are justified, and particularly receive remission 
of sins, the Holy Spirit, and everlasting salvation, 
from the free and undeserved goodness of God; 
upon the consideration of the perfect righteous- 
ness and the meritorious sacrifice of Jesus Christ, 
and upon the condition or qualification of a pious 
temper of heart for the future, to obey the will 
of God, and consequently to do what is right and 
just in whatsoever way He is pleased to declare 
it, but particularly as it is declared by the Lord 
Jesus Christ; which same condition too we had 
never been able to perform without the assistance 
of the grace of God.—M. ]. 

[TayLor :—Let a man believe all the revela- 
tions of God; if that belief ends in itself and 
goes no further, it is like physic taken to purge 
the stomach; if it do not work, it is so far from 
bringing health, that itself is a new sickness.— 
ΜΠ]: 

ee υτ τη hath in it the image of 
godliness engraven and infidelity hath the char- 
acter of wickedness and prevarication.—M. ]. 

[Satvranus:—LHominem fideliter Christo eredere 
est fidelem Deo esse, ἢ. 6. fideliter in Det mandata 
servare.”’—M. ]. 

[Lacrantius :—‘ Christianorum omnis religio 
sine scelere et macula vivere.” —M. ]. 

[Taytor:—There are but three things that 
make the integrity of Christian faith; believing 
the words of God, confidence in His goodness, 
and keeping His commandments.—Believing is 
the least thing in a justifying faith; for faith is 
a conjugation of many ingredients, and faith isa 
covenant, and faith is a law, and faith is obedi- 
ence, and faith is a work, and indeed it isa 
sincere cleaving to and closing with the terms 
of the Gospel in every instance, in every parti- 
cular.—M. ]. 

[Compare also on v. 23. Jonn Howe, Friend- 
ship with God, 10 Sermons. Works, 8, 376.— 
vy. 24. Taytor, Faith working by love. Sermons. 
—Butt, Doctrina D. Jacobi de justificatione ex 
operibus explanatur et defenditur, Works, 8, 1.— 


so is that a vain and dead faith, which, profess- M. ]. 


92 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


VI. FOURTH ADMONITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE FOURTH 


FORM OF TEMPTATION—PROPAGANDISM. 


CAUTION AGAINST THE JUDAISTIC BIAS TO FANATICAL ACTIVITY OF TEACHING. 


— 
ownwm .Τ o> δι -ι Go bo 


μ- 
--- 


REFERENCE TO THE POWER OF THE TONGUE AND ΤῸ THE DEPRAVITY, LICENCE 
AND DUPLICITY OF THE FANATICALLY EXCITED TONGUE. THE CONTRAST OF 
FALSE AND TRUE WISDOM IN SPEECH ACCORDING TO THEIR OPPOSITE OPERA- 
TIONS. 


CHAPTER III. 


My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater con- 
demnation. For in many things we offend all. Ifany man offend not in word, the 
same 18 a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole! body. Behold’, we put bits 
in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and* we turn about their whole body. 
Behold also the ships, which though they beso great, and are driven of fierce winds‘, yet 
are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever® the governor listeth®. 
Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things’. Behold, how great a 
matter a little® fire kindleth! And the tongue? 7s a fire, a world of iniquity: so’ is the 
tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and" setteth on fire the 
course of nature”; and it is set on fire of hell. For every kind of beasts, and of birds, 
and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: 
But the tongue can no man tame”; 1ὲ 7s an unruly" evil, full of deadly poison. 
Therewith bless we God", even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are 
made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and 
cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth 
at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive 
berries'®? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh’. 
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him show out of a 
good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying 
and strife in your hearts!’, glory not, and lie not against the truth’. This wisdom 
descendeth not from above, but 7s earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and 
strife 7s, there® 7s confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from 
above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and 
good fruits, without partiality, and* without hypocrisy. And the fruit of” righteous- 
ness is sown in peace of them that make peace. 


Verse1. Lange: Become not many teachers, my brethren, since ye know, that we shall [as such] receive a greater 
{a more severe} condemnation [judicial sentence. ] 
[.... knowing that we shall receive greater condemnation.—M.] 
Verse 2. [1 Cod. Sin. has δυνάμενος for δυνατός.--Μ. 
Lange: For manifoldly we offend all; if a man offendeth not in word he is a perfect man, able even to bridle 
the whole body. 
[For oftentimes we all offend....... word, this man is a perfect man, able to bridle also the whole body. 


Verse 3. [3 Rec. “ais ἰδού against the most authentic codd. C.and Griesbach read ide. A.B. 6. Sin. and al. 
Lachmann and Tisch. have ei δέ. [So Alford, Wordsw. Ecce enim, Syr. Si autem, Vulg.—M.] 
[8 B.C. eis τό. [So Cod. Sin. Alf. Rec. πρὸς with A. K. L. (?)—M.] 
Lange: But if we put bits into the horses’ mouths, in order that they may obey us, we guide also their 
whole body. 
{...... the bits into the mouths of horses in order to their obeying us, we also turn about their whole 
body.—M. 
Verse 4. [ἀνέμων re B. C. K. Cod. Sin. oxAnp. ἀνέμ. Rec. A. L.—M.J 
S\omr0v av Rec.—érov Sin. B.—M.] 
6 ood. Sin. B read βούλεται for BovAnrat—M.] 
Lange: Behold even the ships, although they are so great and are [moreover] tossed about by fierce winds, 
even they are guided with a very small rudder, whithersoever the direction [course] of the steersman 
{guide} may wish. 
[. . though so great and driven by. . . are turned about by a very small rudder, whithersoever the will of 
the steersman may wish.—M.} 
Verse 5. 7 Thoreading μεγάλα αὐχεῖ A. C.* recommended by Tischend. is preferable to peyadavyei. 
8 The difference between ἡλίκον and ὀλίγον keeps balancing between the authorities and the critics. 
In point of sense both amount to the same thing with the exception that ἡλίκον, the more cifficult 
reading, gives also the stronger expression: what a fire, 7. δ. what a little fire. ῃ λίκον is decidedly 
the more authentic reading. It is in A.** B. 0.* Cod. Sin. Vulg. received by Lachmann, Tisch., Alford, 
Wordsw., de Wette, Huther and'others. Alford maintains that ἡ λίκος is “quantulus” as well as 
“ quantus” and cites Lucian, Hermot. 5.—M. 
Lange: Thus also the tongue is a litde member and boasteth great things —Behold what a little fire— 
what a forest it doth kindle [Jerusalem on fire.] 
[. . . Behold how small a fire kindleth how great a forest—M] 


CHAP. III. 


93 


a  ——————————————— ——  Ὁ-ρρς-ς.Θ.-., ὌἨ:..ςς- .. 


Verse 6. 9[Cod. Sin. omits καὶ before yAdooa—M.] 


( 
10 οὕτως before the second ἡ γλῶσσα is wanting in[A. B. C. K. Θοά. Sin.—M.] 


12 
Lange: 
Formigkeit”| of unrighteousness. 


11[Cod. Sin. reads καὶ σπιλοῦσα for ἡ σπιλοῦσα. 
too Sin reads ἡμῶν after yevéerews.—M.] 

The tongue also is a fire; it, the world {the adornment of the world, worldliness [Germ.: “ Welt- 
The tongue steppeth forth [rules] among our members, it, which de- 


Rec. and many others.—M.] 


fileth the whole body and inflameth the [revolving] wheel of the development of life, and itself is in- 


flamed by hell. 


[And the tongue is a fire, that world of iniquity. The tongue makes itself in our members the polluter 
of the whole body [Wordsworth], and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and itself is set on fire 


by hell.—M.] 
Verse 7. 


Lange: For every nature of the wild beasts and of the birds, of ths creeping creatures and of sea- 


creatures is tamed and hath been tamed by human nature. 
..... of beasts and birds [lit. winged things], of creeping things and things in the sea.... . —M.] 
Verse 8. 13[δύναται δαμάσαι ἀνθρώπων. Cod. Sin. A. K.—M.] 


ἀκατάσχετον, Rec. C. α. Καὶ 


lf ἀκατάστατον is on good grounds preferred by Lachm. Tisch. according to A. B. Vulg. and Cod. Sin. to 


Lange: But the tongue no one of men is able to tame, the [causing restlessness and disquiet; Germ: 
“unruhstiftend ”—] evil full of death-bringin τ poison. 
[. . . it is a restless evil, full of death-bringing poison.—M.] 
Verse 9. 15 A. B. α. Tisch. Lachm. jer Cod. Sin] read τὸν κύριον. 


Lange: With it praise 


bless] we the Lord and Father [also as Father] and with the same curse we men, 


who after the image [similitude] of God are created [have become, destined to become His children. ] 
[Therewith bless we the Lord and Father, and therewith ...... have been created after the likeness of 


God.—M. | 


Verse 10. Lange: .. . praising and cursing. 


[. . . goeth forth [Stier, de Wette, Allioli and al.]—M.] 
Lange: It shal] not be thus, my brethren, that these things come thus to pass. 


Verse 12.16 οὕτως is opposed by the most important witnesses. 


The immediate sequel in Text. Rec. becomes modi- 


fied into ob re ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ. Cod. Sin. favours οὕτως etc. [Syr. “ta etiam 


aqua salsa non fiert potest dulcis.”—M. } 
17[Cod. Sin. omits καὶ before yAv«v.—M.] 


Lange: Doth the fountain, perchance, bubble out of the same opening sweet and bitter [water]? 
tree, my brethren, surely cannot produce olives, or the vine figs? 


[water] give sweet water. 


A fig- 
(Thus] nor can [any fountain] salt 


[Doth a fountain, perchance, out of the same chink | Alford] send forth the sweet and the bitter? Can a fig- 


tree, my brethren, yield olives... 
Verse 13. 
in gentleness of wisdom. 
Pagans 
ness of wisdom.—M.] 
Verse 14. 18[Cod. Sin. rats kap6.—M.] 


Lange: Who is wise and intelligeut among you? 


, nor can salt [water] yield sweet water.—M. ] 


Let him show through good conduct his works [that is] 


intelligent among you [Bengel, Stier, de Wette, al]. . . out of a good conversation his works in meek- 


Lange: But if ye harbor bitter zeal and quarrelsomeness in your hearts, boast not yourselves. . . 


[But if ye harbor bitter emulation and party-strife . 


. . boast not.—M.] 


19[Cod. Sin. κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ψεύδεσθ ε.--Μ.]} 


Verse 15. Lange: 


For this wisdom is not that which cometh down from above, but an earthly, sensuous [soulish 


(Germ. seelisch, almost impossible to render in English without a circumlocution), passionate], devilish 


one. 


[This wisdom is not that which is coming from above, but earthly, sensuous, devilish.—M. ] 


Verse 16. 20[Cod. Sin. has καὶ atter ἐκεῖ; sv A.—M.] 


Lange: For where is emulation and quarrelsomeness, there is seditious work and all manner of ΟΥἹ] 


doing. 


. . .emulation and party-strife, there is perturbation and every evil deed.— M.] 
Verse 17.21 A. B.C. Sin. and al.omit καὶ after ἀδιάκριτος. 
32 τῆς before δικαιοσύνης is omitted in A. B. C. L. [and Cod Sin—M.] 
Lange: But the wisdom from above is first of all consecrated [theocratically pure or chaste, free from apos- 
tasy], then peaceable, equitably disposed [philanthropical, humane], gladly yielding, full of compassion 
and good fruits, without separatism, without hypocrisy. 


[. . . first pure, then peaceable, equitable, compliant, .. . 


undistinguishing, without hypocrisy.—M.] 


Verse 18. Lange: But the [future] fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by them.... 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Awnatysts: Caution against the Judaistic bias 
to fanatical activity of teaching, vy. 1. 2.—The 
power of the tongue vv. 3, 4 (first half). The 
depravity of the tongue yy. 5, 6.—The untama- 
bleness of the tongue, vv. 7, 8.—The duplicity 
(German ‘‘ doubletonguedness,” Doppelziingigkett) 
of the [fanatically excited] tongue, vv. 9-12.— 
The contrast of false and true wisdom in speech 
according to their opposite operations, vv. 13-18. 

Caution against the Judaistic bias to fanatical 
activity of teaching. 

Vers. 1, 2. The exhortation progresses from 
Judaistic visionariness (ch. i.) and from Judaistic 
particularism and exclusiveness (ch, ii.) to Juda- 
istic, fanatical activity of teaching, to the evil, 
exciting and pernicious tongue-sins of bitter 
emulation, cursing, envying and party-strife ex- 
hibited in a false, devilish wisdom in contrast 
with true and heavenly wisdom. That this sec- 
tion is an essential point peculiar to the entire 
Epistle, is evident from the fact that it has been 


announced already in ch. i. 17, 26. The fanati- 
cal, proselyting and polemical mania for teaching, 
which is here described by James, had previously 
been delineated by the Lord Himself, Matth. 
Xxiil., and by Paul the Apostle in Rom. ii. 17; 
it is here and there illuminated in Acts (ch. xv.) 
and in the Pauline Epistles (2 Cor. xi. 13; Phil. 
iii. 2; Gal. ii.), and it is finally condemned in 
Rey. ii. 9.  Wiesinger heads this chapter 
‘‘against the itch of teaching”? and adds the ob- 
servation—that ‘‘the author passes on to the 
ready-tongued teaching and finding fault with 
others, because this is the false actualization of 
the πίστις of his readers, whereby they think 
themselves warranted to dispense with genuine 
actualization [7 e. the practical exhibition of 
living faith by good works.—M.]. Nothing is 
nearer to a faith which consists in knowledge 
only than conceit of teaching and dogmatical- 
ness (cf. Rom. ii. 17 οἷο). Thus ch, 111. is the 
carrying out of the censure James had already 
passed on his readers in ch. i. 19, 20 and simi- 
larly as in ch. i. 26, 27, where the author had 
indicated inability to bridle the tongue as the 


94 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


characteristic of a purely imaginary religion 
and the exhibition of compassionating love as the 
characteristic of true religion, he now returns to 
[we ought to say: he now takes up in earnest] 
this subject, and represents to his readers that 
the human inability, so strongly developed in 
them, of taming the tongue, ought to cure them 
effectually of the desire to teach others.” Hu- 
ther: ‘‘ Words had taken the place of works.” 

Ver. 1. Do not become many teachers. 
—The exposition of Huther (and of de Wette, 
Wiesinger) ‘‘be not teachers in great numbers,” 
gives hardly a satisfactory sense. For if refer- 
ence were made to ecclesiastically ordained 
offices of teaching (as Wiesinger maintains with 
reference to 2 Tim. iv. 5), the language of the 
Apostle would hardly convey the rebuke he in- 
tends to administer. It is evidently his purpose 
to censure the false mania for teaching, the dog- 
matizing contentiousness, which is thoroughly 
characteristic of the Judaizing Christian. We 
therefore connect (with Gebser and Schnecken- 
burger) πολλοὶ with γίνεσθαι and so that πολλοὶ 
and διδάσκαλοι form one idea. Do not end with 
being a great host of teachers. Luther: ‘Let 
not every one dare to be a teacher.” The ex- 
pression has consequently an ironical colouring 
and even stronger than the μὴ πάντες of Grotius. 

Knowing that we.—They know it and they 
ought to be conscious of it. [Huther remarks 
that εἰδότες. being closely joined in the Impera- 
tive, is itself hortatory: ‘‘knowing, that ye 
might know.’”’ James says here ‘we shall re- 
ceive” and in y. 2 ‘‘we all offend” and thus for- 
cibly practises his precepts vy. 2,17, 18. Cf. 1 
Cor. vi. 12.—M.]. 

A greater condemnation.—Although κρίμα 
cannot signify ‘“responsibility”’ only (so Hottin- 
ger and Augusti) the ordinary N. T. usage does 
not necessitate us to insist with Wiesinger (who 
remarks however that a sententia damnatoria is out 
of the question) and Huther on the meaning 
‘‘punitory sentence.” The fact that James in- 
cludes himself is certainly against the latter con- 
struction. ‘‘The humility of love” (Wiesinger) 
surely could not cause him to assert something, 
which was inapplicable to Himself, and Huther’s 
observation that the punitory sentence might 
be postponed, does not by any means settle the 
difficulty. κρίμα denotes primarily judgment, 
then more definitely a judicial sentence and it 
generally becomes a punitory sentence by the con- 
nection, just as the connection here does not 
make it so. Moreover, how were the readers 
of the Epistle to know that all teachers as such 
have to expect heavy punishment (German, pu- 
nitory sentences). The increased measure of 
the sentence may be gathered from various say- 
ings of our Lord (Matth. xxiii. 13 and else- 
where). The increased measure, to be sure, in- 
dicates that the severer sentence agreeably to 
natnre may easily turn into a punitive sentence. 

Ver. 2. For manifoldly we offend all 
(dmavrec).—This assertion is absolutely valid. 
The Apostle includes himself without any quali- 
fication, just as Peter (Acts. xv. 11), Paul (Phil. 
iii. 12) and John (1 Jno. i. 8) include themselves 
in similar assertions. Although πταίειν does 
not bear directly on the errores, qui docentibus 
obvenire possint (Grotius), but comprehends moral 


offences in the widest sense (Huther), the word 
is so chosen as forthwith to point to moral er- 
rors and offences and these occur for the most 
part in the sphere of teaching (Lehrrede—didac- 
tic utterance). 

If a man offendeth not in word.—The 
asyndeton indicates that James progresses in 
the same sphere of thought and hence aims not 
at an antithesis, as Wiesinger rightly observes. 
Although the ἐν λόγῳ may not have to be limited 
to ἐν διδασκαλίᾳ (ef. ch. i. 19), as Pott maintains, 
the context requires us to think of didactic of- 
fences which were the soul of Judaizing pro- 
ceedings. 

He is a perfect man,—Supply ἐστί. Every 
word is here significant ; οὗτος denotes the rarity 
of such a man, ἀνήρ indicates that the Apostle 
refers in particular to a sphere of males and 
their doings, τέλειος describes once more the N. 
T. maturity of faith, principial completion. The 
proposition may easily be generalized and made 
to denote the ideal of the Christian life which 
none can attain here on earth (see de Wette) ; 
but James manifestly refers to something attain- 
able, which is evident from what follows. 

Able even to bridle the whole body.— 
This inference is founded on the thought that 
the tongue is that member of the body over 
which man finds it most difficult to establish the 
mastery and that he who does not offend in word, 
shows that he has established that mastery. 
Consequently: he who offendeth in no word and 
thereby shows himself to be the master of his 
tongue, has obtained the mastery over his whole 
body. But just as the inference is here not to 
the physical tongue as such but only as the or- 
gan and symbol of readiness of speech, so James 
does not ‘‘set the body as such in opposition to 
man’? as a relative independent power which 
offers moral resistance to the will of the ‘‘Ego” 
(Wiesinger, Huther), but the body denotes here 
the organ and symbol of all human action with 
the exception of speech. The sense in brief is 
therefore as follows: he who truly masters his 
words, will also master his works. Life under 
the law of liberty is most difficult to be eyi- 
denced in the mastery of one’s speech. Huther 
also afterwards acknowledges the figurative in 
the language of James: ‘The καρδία indeed is 
the fountain of evil deeds (Matth. xv. 19), but 
the lust which is rooted therein, has so tho- 
roughly appropriated the members of man and 
as it were fixed its dwelling in them, that they 
appear as lusting subjects and may be repre- 
sented as such in living-concrete language.” 
But the figures of the horse and the ship, which 
follow, prove that the reference is not only to 
opposing sinfulness (the seeming law in the 
members Rom. vii. 23), but also to the naturalness 
itself which is subordinated to the spirit and 
needs guiding; for the horse does not resist its 
rider, and the ship its helmsman, as the old man 
resists the new. Huther moreover sets here 
aside several explanations (‘‘the whole connec- 
tion of the acts and changes of man” Baumgar- 
ten, etc.), which are more or less well suited to 
define the idea on which the “as it were,” in con- 
nection with the body needing to be guided, is 
based. But the organie concretion and mem- 
bering (Gliederung=articulating) of the lusts of 


CHAP. III. 


95 


the heart in the sinfully untuned corporealness 
must be held fast. 

The power of the tongue, vv. 3, 4. 

James illustrates the power and import of the 
tongue by two comparisons. In v. 2 he had set it 
forth as being relatively the most mighty member 
among the members of the body, he now deyel- 
ops the thought that it is the ruling member, the 
control of which involves the control of the whole 
body. He takes for granted that it is only the 
*spirit which can control the body; but the organ 
of its rule, the instrument to be controlled for 
the control of the body, is just the tongue. The 
word is the disposer of acts. ‘This whole dis- 
cussion of the wild power of the tongue is not 
‘bombast’ (Schleiermacher), but designed to 
make clear to his readers their ~erverseness.”’ 
Wiesinger. Right, but Jamzs knows also a 
power of the tongue in a good sense. 

First figure. Ver. 3. But if we put the 
bit into the mouths of horses.—The Apostle 
introduces first the figure of horses, because he 
had already before borrowed therefrom the 
fizurative expression χαλιναγωγῆσαι (vy. 2; ch. i. 
25). Hence the Genitive τῶν ἵππων should pro- 
bably be joined with τοὺς χαλινοὺς (Theile), and 
not with τὰ στόματα (Oecumenius and al. Huther). 
[τῶν ἵππων appears to stand first for the sake of 
emphasis. Translating literally ‘But if of 
horses we put the bits into the mouth” is not 
English. (Alford). We have therefore ex- 
pressed the idea in idiomatic English; the dis- 
tinction of Lange to connect τῶν ἵππων with 
τοὺς χαλινοὺς instead of joining it with τὰ στόματα 
is really a distinction without a difference. We 
put its into the mouths of horses, that is real, 
material bits; of course, such bits we do not put 
into the mouths of men. The sense is really 
the same on either construction. The simili- 
tude contains the application.—M.]. The bits 
[Lange throughout uses the word Zawm=bridle, 
but yadvéc is not the bridle, but its metal mouth- 
piece. I have therefore uniformly rendered 
Zaum=bit.—M.] of horses as literal bits are 
contrasted with the figurative. But both kinds 
belong to the respective mouths: the horse-bit 
belougs to a horse’s mouth, the man-bit to a 
man’s mouth. Thus the principal accent lies 
certainly on τὰ στόματα. These constitute the 
tertium comparationis, not ‘‘the smallness of the 
χαλινοί, a8 the majority of commentators sup- 
pose” Huther. The apodosis begins with καὶ ὅλον 

Wiesinger, Huther); it is not contained in vy. 5 
trheiley ; nor does it require us to supply some- 
thing in thought (de Wette). μετάγειν occurs in 
the N. T. only here and v. 4.— 

Second figure.—Ver. 4. Behold even the 
ships.—The organ of guiding, probably con- 
nected with the natural unruliness of the horse 
to be guided, was the principal idea of the first 
figure: the mouth, the tongue; in the second 
figure it is the contrast between the smallness of 
the organ, the fine touch required to influence 

‘it and the greatness as well as the storm-tossed 
condition of the ship to be turned. The small 
ruader on which the will of man with almost the 
stillness of spirits, exerts its impulse, governs 
the whole great ship with all the fearful reaction 
of the wind and the waves, which like infuriated 
elementary spirits oppose the firm spirit of the 


steersman. Hence the first καὶ, as well as ἰδοὺ, 
denotes intensifivation. The participial sentence 
ὄντα brings out the immense weight which the 
rudder has to overcome; which are so great, or 
though so great.—éAaivew to drive on, set in 
motion, is used elsewhere in the N. T. of navyi- 
gating proper [cf. Mark vi. 48; Jno. vi. 19, 
LXX. for 9p, Is. xxxiii. 21.—M.], but then 


also of restless agitation 2 Pet. ii. 17. Fierce 
winds are the wild navigators of the ship whom 
the human navigator opposes with his rudder. 
They have doubtless a symbolical import, as 
Bede did think, not however as the appetitus 
mentium originating within, but as the great 
temptations (πειρασμοί) of the world, coming 
from without, the place of whose nativity, to be 
sure, is within (see ch. i. 6). The little rudder 
is here obviously the antitype of the little tongue. 
[Bede’s exposition may be found useful in point 
of application, although it is hardly sound in 
point of exegesis. ‘* Nayes magne in mari, mentes 
sunt hominum in hac yita, sive bonorum sive 
malorum. Venti validi, a quibus minantur, ipsi 
appetitus sunt mentium, quibus naturaliter co- 
guntur aliquid agere etc.” —M. ]. 


Whithersoever the direction.—Although 
ὁρμὴ hardly denotes the impulsus externus, the 
steerman’s pressure on the rudder (Erasmus and 
many others), the translation ‘“‘eager will, desire 
of something” (Bede, Calvin, Huther ete.) is 
hardly sufficient; ὁρμῇ always indicates active 
will developed into an effort or onset; hence 
here the direction, the course of the navigator, 
kept in action by the rudder. On similar com- 
parisons among the classics see Gebser, Theile. 
[ὁρμή signifies primarily any violent pressure on- 
wards (opvuut), then the first stir or move towards 
a thing, then impulse, eager desire in the sense 
of will. I render ‘ will.” because the will of 
the steersman directs the impulse given to the 
rudder and thereby to the ship.—M.].—‘The 
two similitudes of the bit and navigation have 
often been connected by the ancients in a similar 
manner, so that Priceus even theught that 
James might have borrowed them from Plato or 
some other Greek writer.” Gebser. Huther 
further calls attention to the circusastance that 
the reference here is to the actual εὐθύνων, not to 
the technical or official εὐθυντήρ. 

Ver. 5. Thus also the tongue.—A little 
member like the little rudder. 


And boasteth great things.—Since peya- 
Aavyei describes absolutely haughty and over- 
bearing conduct, the reading μεγάλα avyéie seems 
to be preferable (see note in Appar. Crit. above). 
For James had spoken of a great and praise- 
worthy doing; he could not with οὕτως pass at 
once from the figure of the rudder to the perni- 
cious doing of the tongue. The idod moreover 
separates the thought under notice from the con- 
templation of the pernicious operation of the 
tongue, which follows. The selection of the term 
simply intimates that the tongue not only does 
great things, but boasts of the great things. 
Bede: ‘‘ Magna exaltat.” The explanation ‘‘ac- 
complishes great things” Luther (similarly 
Oecumenius, Calvin and al.), gives tone to the 
fundamental idea without preserving the shading 
[i.e. the gradual shading off—M.]. Persevering 


96 


to the idea μεγαλαυχεῖ (Huther, similarly Wiesin- 
ger) is not based on the context. 

The pernicious doing of the tongue. ν 

y. 8 (second half), ν. 6. Behold how small 
a fire.—//.xov gives prominence to the quantity 
according to the construction, either in point of 
greatness or smallness; here in point of small- 
ness (Cajetanus, Huther). de Wette understands 
it as denoting a great fire; but the Apostle’s 
design was not so much the aesthetic contempla- 
tion of a forest-conflagration, as to point to the 
wicked origin thereof in a little spark; against 
this Wiesinger justly lays stress on ἀνάπτει 

which is not—consumed, but—lighteth up, 

indleth. Seneca (Cont. v, 5) employs very 
similar language ‘‘quam lenibus initiis quanta 
incendia oriantur.”—M.].—Huther, adverting to 
corresponding descriptions in Homer, Pindar, 
Philo ete., points out that the concrete sense of 
vAn—forest, is preferable to the vaguer materia 
=combustible etc. [The classical descriptions 
are found in Homer, 7]. xi. 115: Plutarch, Sym- 
pos. viii. p. 730; Pindar, Pyth. iii. 66; Virgil, 
Georg. ii. 803.—M.]. 

Ver. 6. The tongue also is a fire.—The 
figure of a spark or a very small fire producing 
the conflagration of a forest, is now applied to 
the incendiary ravages of the tongue. The 
tongue is fiery as to its nature in general, ἡ, e. 
the organ of speech, easily inflamed by spiritual 
fire, by passionate, yehement and consuming 
impulse. James here passes over the fact that 
the tongue is destined to become an organ of 
heavenly fire, Acts ii., for his eye is fixed on the 
pernicious fire of fanaticism which begins to 
inflame the Judaistic spirits throughout the 
world. 

It, the world of unrighteousness [that 
world of iniquity ].—Not an elliptical clause, 
requiring ὕλῃ to complete it in the sense ‘the 
tongue is the fire, the world is the forest.””— 
Morus and al. This cosmos then is a further 
designation of the tongue. According to Wie- 
singer κόσμος in general, denotes the sum-total of 
what is created (Matth. xiii. 85; Eph. i. 4), 
‘the cosmos of unrighteousness,” hence here 
“the sum-total of unrighteousness.’? So Huther 
citing ὅλος ὁ κόσμος τῶν χρημάτων LXX. Prov. xvii. 
8, Calvin: ‘*Acsi vocaret mare, et abyssum.” 
Olshausen and al., ‘‘it is as it were the unright- 
eous world itself, which has its seat in the 
tongue.” See the interpretations of Theile, 
Estius, Herder, Gebser, Clericus (who with 
others holds the words to be spurious), in Huther. 
Oecumenius and many others read xécjoc—adorn- 
ment of unrighteousness: the tongue adorns 
unrighteousness by rhetorical arts. Wiesinger 
objects 1. that κόσμος is a passive idea, 2. that 
the sense would be too feeble. The word need 
not be taken in the sense of ‘‘*adornment,’’ but 
we may nevertheless suppose that James here, as 
frequently, returns to the original signification 
of the Greek word. In point of fact it is the 
tongue which sophistically, rhetorically, poeti- 
cally, parenthetically and imperatively gives to 
unrighteousness its worldly, apparently respec- 
table and even splendid form. We therefore 
suppose that James wanted to say that ‘the 
tongue is the form of the world, worldliness, 
worldly culture, the seemingly beautiful world 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


of unrighteousness.” At all events he could 
have described it as the sum-total of unrighteous- 
ness only in a highly figurative sense. We 
therefore hold with Vischendorf and Neander 
against Huther and the majority of commenta- 
tors, that ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας does not belong 
appositionally to what goes before, but belongs 
to what follows. The addition ‘the sum-total 
of unrighteousness”? would not explain the propo- 
sition “the tongue is a fire.” But it is to be 
understood that the tongue is prominent among 
the members as the world of unrighteousness. 
It is however matter of inquiry what is the 
meaning of καθίσταται ἢ The following interpre- 
tations are idle, to say nothing of their incor- 
rectness: it stands, it is placed, it is set; that of 
Huther also is inadequate: it sets itself, appears 
in connection with what follows, as that which 
polluteth the whole body. In agreement with 
the full meaning of καθιστάναι and with the con- 
text, the word according to the analogy of Heb. 
viii. 38 and other passages, taken absolutely, 
denotes the presidency, the dominatéon of the 
tongue among the members. In virtue of its 
worldly culture, which understands even how to 
beautify unrighteousness, the tongue rules among 
the members. But what a contrast between its 
works and its position! And it is just 7, which 
from its prominence pollutes the whole body.— 
Before the world it washes all unrighteousness 
clean, before God or truth it stains and pollutes 
the whole body, ὁ. 6. the tongue, by the preced- 
ing, sinful word paves the way to all the sinful 
acts of all the members. Although σπελοῦν does 
not suit πῦρ (notwithstanding Bengel’s explana- 
tion ‘‘ut ignis per. fumum’’), it suits the saying 
‘the tongue is the κόσμος" as its perfect anti- 
thesis. Apparent comeliness is the most essen- 
tial deformity of life. How it pollutes the life is 
apparent from wat follows. [But there seems 
really to be no objection to the rendering ‘‘ makes 
itself,” which is preferable to Lange’s, because 
it is founded on better grammar than his and 
gives a good, clear and unforced sense. καθίσ- 
tara is used here as inch. iv. 4. Huther. ‘The 
tongue by acting in and upon the members, makes 
itself to be the defiler of the whole body. It is 
so made ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ἡμῶν, which, as their 
neme intimates, ought to move in harmonious 
melody and amicable concert with each other; 
and so glorify their maker. But the tongue 
mars their music by its discord. It is even like 
an intestine volcano; and sends forth a dark 
stream of lava, and a murky shower of ashes and 
smoke, and is thus a source of pollution, sullying 
and staining as with foul blots (σπιλοῦσα) the 
beauty of all around it; and also like a voleano, 
it emits a flood of fire.” Wordsworth.—M. ]. 

And inflameth.—Wiesinger takes καὶ, καὶ in 
the sense ‘“‘as well as,” and sets both in the re- 
lation of logical subordination to ἡ σπιλοῦσα. We 
object with Huther, because the following words 
are not only explanatory but intensive. The 
tongue inflames 

The wheel of the development of life.— 
That τροχός denotes a wheel requires no further 
proof (see 1 Kings vii. 80 ete.; Ezek. i. 15, 19, 
20). But the question is what is the meaning of 
γένεσις and what is therefore the meaning of 
τροχὸς γενέσεως ἢ According to Huther γένεσις 


ΘΗ ΠῚ 


97 


ee 


denotes here ‘‘as in ch. i. 23” (see the passage), 
birth, the wheel of birth; that is: the wheel re- 
volving from our birth, ἡ, 6. life. Similarly Oecu- 
menius. Taking the separate features differently, 
Calvin and al. reach the same idea: the wheel is 
the cursus, the genesis is the natura; the two 
united—life.—Wiesinger (after Kern) passes from 
the interpretation ‘it inflameth the revolving 
wheel,” the spherical course of being (Pott, 
Schneckenburger), to another: ‘it inflameth the 
circumference of our corporeal being ”’ (literally 
‘cof that which has become’’). As the axis or 
centre of the circle it diffuses its fire over the 
whole circumference. ‘However, genesis, taken 
in the sense of birth, is not life itself but itself 
only the first revolution of the wheel. Although 
we need not think (with de Wette following more 
ancient commentators) of the orb of creation 
absolutely, or of the cycle of the self-renovation 


of mankind ( 373 ΓΘ, Wolf and al.); 


it does not follow that genesis here should be 
taken as birth only, and life only as individual 
life. The genesis of man rather progresses in an 
ethical sense through the whole of his earthly 
existence, and if it is said that the tongue setteth 
on fire the wheel or the revolution of the develop- 
ment of life, the word in this generality applies 
not only to individual life, but also to the life of 
humanity, primarily of course, to the life of the 
Jewish people, but in its widest sense even to the 
development of the life of this (earthly) cosmos. 
The fanatical fire, which at first made the devel- 
opment of the life of individual Jews a continu- 
ously growing fire of a burning and revolving 
wheel, at last seized the development of the life 
of the whole Jewish nation (for chiliastie world- 
liness lay at the bottom of the crucifixion of 
Christ and of the Jewish War) and imperceptibly 
communicates itself to all mankind and to the 
earthly κόσμος as the causality of the fiery day, 
the last day—immanent in the world. James is 
fully right in saying that it is the tongue which 
changes the wheel of the human development of 
life into a burning fire-wheel; or we might say: 
a ship on fire entering the port. Perhaps every 
man may find in his course of life a proportionate 
quantity of this feverish fire-impulse (see Ps. xc. ) 
“This verb φλογίζειν is ἅπαξ Aey, in N. T.; it oc- 
curs in the LXX. Ex. ix. 24. Huther, with 
whom we should interpret the word of the fire of 
passion and not with Morus ‘de damnis que lin- 
gua dat,” although the self-consumption of this 
sin of burning passion is also alluded to, and the 
reference is not to a mere kindling (Michzlis). 
[Alford renders “the orb of creation,” and 
Wordsworth ‘‘the wheel of nature.” The idea 
in both is really the same. The note of the latter 
will doubtless be prized; ‘The τροχὸς γενέσεως is 
the wheel of nature, the orbis terrarum, the world 
itself in its various revolutions; in which one 
generation follows another, and one season suc- 
ceeds another; and so τροχὸς γενέσεως is used by 
Simplicius in Epict. p. 94, and other like expres- 
sions in authors quoted here by Wetstein, p. 
670.—In a secondary sense, this τροχὸς γενέσεως 
is the wheel of human nature, of human life, of hu- 
man society, which is compared to a wheel by So- 
lomon Eccl. xii. 6; and so Greg. Naz. (in Sentent. 
ap. a Lapide), and Silius Ital. 3, 6, ‘rota volvi- 


tur evi,” and Boethius (de Consol. 2, pr. 1), ‘thee 
nostra vita est rotam volubili orbe versamus.”’ This 
wheel is ever rolling round, ever turning apace, 
whirling about, never continuing in one stay, 
seeking rest and finding none. So these words 
of the Apostle are explained by Oecumen., Bede, 
and Bp. Andrewes, 1, 361; 2, 294, 319.—The 
functions of a wheel, set on fire by the internal 
friction of its own axis, are deranged, and so the 
organization of human society is disturbed and 
destroyed by the intestine fire of the human 
tongue; a fire which diffuses itself from the 
centre and radiates forth to the circumference 
by all the spokes of slander and detraction, and 
involves the social framework in combustion and 
conflagration.—M. ]. 

And itself is inflamed.—Not only once, but 
habitually (φλογιζομένη Part. Pres.). It is as 
unwarrantable to change the participle into the 
preterite as to explain it of the future, as a pro- 
phecy of hell-fire (Grotius and al.). 

By hell. Gehenna itself uniformly and through- 
out to be distinguished from Sheol (besides the 
synoptical gospel found here only), as a symboli- 
cally described fire-region (yéevva τοῦ πυρός) will 
not be wholly completed before the end of the 
world. The positive primitive fire of Gehenna is 
brought about by the immanent heat of devilish 
passions which proceed from the devil through 
his kingdom. This devilish heat, therefore, is 
here described as the causality of that fanatical 
heat of men (cf. v.15). That fiery heat of fana- 
ticism the origin of which the Judaists wanted to 
refer to God (ch. i. 18). James refers directly 
to the devil. And in this manner it exhibited 
itself by hatred, lying and death and particularly 
by frenzy. The strongest utterance concerning 
the evil tongue excepting the sayings of our 
Lord of the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost and the 
apocalyptic saying of the blasphemies of the beast 
(Dan. vii. vili.; Rev. xiii.)! Approximating descrip- 
tions are produced by Huther, Ps. lii. 4; cxx. 3, 4; 
Prov. xvi. 26; Sir. vy. 15. Wiesinger in addition 
to the specification of sin according to the mem- 
bers of the body, as here indicated, cites also 
Rom. iii. 18; Col. iii. 5. But the latter passage 
belongs to another chapter; the seeming mem- 
bers (Scheinglieder) of the old man.—But Rom. 
vi. 13, 19 belongs hither. 

The untamableness of the tongue. vv. 7, 8. 

Ver.7. Forevery nature ofthe wild beasts. 
--γὰρ creates difficulty. Huther thinks that it 
substantiates, especially with reference to y. 8, 
the foregoing judgment expressed concerning the 
tongue. But the assertion concerning the un- 
tamableness of the tongue does not substantiate 
the assertion concerning the depravity of the 
tongue. Wiesinger makes γὰρ substantiate even 
the preceding μεγαλαυχεῖ, while Pott holds that 
it simply indicates the transition. In our opinion 
the ydp substantiates the words immediately pre- 
ceding: ‘itself is imflamed by hell.” Whereby 
will he prove that assertion? By the untamable- 
ness of the tongue. If the nature of the tongue 
were only animal, man, the power of human 
nature could tame it as well as every thing ani- 
mal. But the untamableness of the tongue shows 
that there is something devilish in its excitement, 
over which human nature left to itself has no 
power. Only by the wisdom which is from 


98 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


.͵.ιι««ιῳιωἷ,,ἕἅὦο...Θο----ὔΟῸΡ΄»΄’ νςα----α--- ὅ --αὁ-ς--ς---΄᾿΄ - Ὸῦ-- ῦ ὺ΄-------------ς--- 


above vy. 15, can be conquered the wisdom which 
is from beneath, i. 6. devilish wisdom, v. 16, and 
that not in the form of taming, breaking in and 
enslaying, but in the form of free transformation 
by regeneration. James first specifies what can 
be tamed,—universal animal nature, then what 
can tame it—human nature. Man as man is a 
match for a beast, but if the animal element in 
man is strengthened by the devils, he can acquire 
the superiority of the ἀνὴρ τέλειος only by Divine 
grace. James divides the animal world into four 
classes. He first mentions together quadrupeds 
(not beasts in general, Pott, or wild beasts in 
particular, Erasmus etc.) and birds, that is the 
higher and more noble species of beasts. Then 
the dismal creeping beasts (not ‘‘animalia ter- 
restria” in general [Pott], not only serpents in 
particular [Luther, Calvin], but amphibia and 
worms as in Gen. xxiv. 25), and the stupid sea- 
animals (not only fishes in the literal sense 
[Huther], nor sea-wonders [Luther], nor sea- 
monsters [Stier]). Huther: ‘The classification 
is here the same as in Gen. ix. 2, which passage 
may have been before the Apostle’s mind.” 
James doubtless thought of serpents as the re- 
presentatives of creeping beasts, with reference 
to the conjurers of serpents, of trained fishes, 
dolphins or the like as the representatives of 
sea-animals. We see here, moreover, that even 
menageries or the art of taming beasts have 
some reference to apostolical truth. The opinion 
of the Apostle really amounts to this: all φύσις, 
every φύσις, as further specified is subjected to 
human φύσις ; the condition only, that man un- 
derstand the natures, which are subjected to him 
and seize them at the right spot of want, docility 
or dependence. Huther rightly observes that 
James does not describe the relation of man the 
individual to individual beasts, but the relation 
of human nature to animal nature in general. 

By human nature—So we must take the Da- 
tive [it is the Dative of the agent—M.], not asa da- 
tivus commodi. Human nature is here the whole 
power of mankind, as it is made to depend on 
itself in dependence upon God, Gen. i. ; hence not 
only the “‘ingenii solertia” (Hottinger), but that 
ingenuity regarded as the most proper charac- 
teristic of human δύναμις in its superiority to 
animal power. 

Is tamed and hath been tamed.—For 
this is a process which beginning with the most 
remote past continues to the most distant future. 
The beasts are more and more subjected to hu- 
man nature, while the diabolically excited tongue 
(to which in the modern world must also be rec- 
koned the pen, so that Satan now speaks more 
to men by the goose-quill [or the steel-pen—M. ] 
than by the mouth of the serpent) becomes in- 
creasingly untamable (see Rev. xiii. 6). δάμα- 
ζεσθαι δύναται is by this process illustrated as a 
fact, and consequently assumed in the two tenses 
of the verb, and not limited to the present only 
(Schneckenburger and al.); δαμάζειν moreover 
denotes not the conquest of our resistance (Hu- 
ther) which also takes place in conversion, but 
the translation into a coerced-psychico-physical 
dependence by the use of appropriate means. If 
it is said therefore that the tongue cannot be 
tamed by human nature, this implies also that it 
cannot be tamed in the form of taming. This 


expression may also affirm with reference to the 
animal world that man’s original relation to the 
beasts has not altogether remained the same (see 
Gen. ix. 2; ef. Gen. i. 28; ii. 20). Wiesinger: 
“Τὴ the opinion of James also man’s dominion 
over the creatures is not lost (cf. Ps. viii. 7, 9) 
but it has been modified like his relation to the 
earth itself.” τ. 9 also furnishes a parallel to 
this verse. 

Ver. 8. But the tongue no one of men.— 
Estiusandal.: the tongue of others; Huther, one’s 
owntongue. Doubtless primarily one’s own tongue, 
for the taming of the tongue must proceed from 
the heart; but the more general sense must not 
be lost sight of. Before the human tongue dia- 
bolically grown wild natural humanity stands as 
before a dragon, for whom there is rot found a 
Knight St. George among men as they are. Ben- 
gel, who interprets: ‘‘nemo alius, vix ipse quis- 
que,” overlooks that the antithesis between the 
natural power of man and a higher power is 
here postulated. But that which still causes 
James to utter an expression of indignation, is 
the pernicious working of the tongue in the Ju- 
daistic world of his time. 


The turbulent evil.—We interpret κακόν 
in the positive ethical sense as wickedness or 
eviland the adjective ἀκατάστατον (see App. Crit.) 
with reference to ch. i. 8 and ἀκαταστασία ch. 111. 
16 according to the meaning of the word in Luke 
xxi. 9; 1 Cor. xiv. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 5; xii.20. The 
revolutionary conduct of the Judaistic tongues 
became at that time more and more inflamed in 
order to prepare for the Jewish people nothing 
but evil, death and ruin. [Alford thinks that 
the figure here seems to correspond nearly to 
what is related of Proteus, that he eluded the 
grasp of Menelaus under many various shapes. 
Cf. Hermas, Pastor 2, 8, πονηρὸν πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ 
καταλαλία, καὶ ἀκατάστατον δαιμόνιον .----Ν]. 1. 

Full of death-bringing poison.—The dia- 
bolical nature, the death-bringing serpent-viru- 
lence of the strife of tongues; contains substan- 
tially the same idea, as the opinion expressed in 
the preceding verse; ‘‘inflamed by hell,” Ps. 
lvili. 5; cxl. 4. 

The duplicity of the (fanatically excited) tongue, 
vy. 9-12. The new element which is introduced 
(but not noticed by Huther and Wiesinger) in 
y. 9, is the falseness, the duplicity, the self-con- 
tradiction and consequently the self-judgment 
(i. ὁ. self-condemnation) of the tongue. The ser- 
pent-like nature of the tongue, v. 8, forms an 
apt transition to the duplicity of the same, inas- 
much as it is simultaneously deceitful and vene- 
mous. 

Ver. 9. Therewith bless we the Lord. 
—(See Appar. Crit.) ἐν is instrumental. Blessing 
and cursing constitute a familiar antithesis; the 
blessing, εὐλογεῖν, 772: as applied to God, de- 

πὸ} 


notes however praising Him. The unusual con- 
nection ‘the Lord and Father” appears to have 
been stated not without design. Although the 
Lord here does not directly designate Christ, yet 
it describes God as the God of revelation, who 
has finally revealed Himself in Christ as Father. 
In Him even the Jew praises unconsciously and 
reluctantly the revelation of God in Christ, 
(Rom. ix. 5). 


CHAP. III. 


99 


..- ι͵ιρἨΡοιιιτ  Γ͵͵΄͵τ΄΄΄πτ΄Π΄ΠΠϊπϊἷ’ἷπτππ----.--’’--.-.---ς-Ἐ--ς-ς----Ἁ 


And therewith curse we men which.— 
A difficulty, insufficiently noticed by many com- 
mentators, arises from the circumstance that 
the Apostle includes himself in we. In order 
to escape it, Benson, Gebser and al. suppose 
that the reference is solely to those who set 
themselves up as teachers. To be sure the re- 
ference is primarily to them, but then also in 
general to the Judaistic element as a whole. Is 
the proposition a general confession of sins con- 
cerning the abuse of the tongue? or a hypothe- 
tical judgment; if we curse men, we do so with 
the same tongue wherewith we praise God? 
The design of a particular reproof forbids the 
former, and the premising of the fact tne latter. 
The difficulty may be solved either by taking 
the second clause as a question expressive of 
surprise or by hearing James speak as the re- 
presentative of his people in the name of his 
guilty people. [Alford recommends the reten- 
tion of which instead of who, which would per- 
sonally designate certain men thus made, while 
which is generic. This distinction, he continues, 
which some modern philologists are striving to 
obliterate, is very important in the rendering of 
Scripture, and has been accurately observed by 
our English translators.—M.]. The latter is 
probably the most natural solution. 

Have been created after the likeness 
of God.—That is, the subjects of this Lord, the 
children of this Father according to their desti- 
nation, or also the images representing this 
Lord and Father. Thisis the glaring contradic- 
tion. Wiesinger and Huther (the latter with 
reference to Bengel’s ‘‘remanet nobilitas indele- 
bilis’’) here observe that sinful man also remains 
created in the likeness of God (Gen. i. 26). 
Without detracting from the general application 
of the proposition the Apostle may be thinking 
of such men, in whom the likeness of God 
(ὁμοίωσις) 1. 6. the actuality and visibility of the 
image, has reappeared [Germ. ‘“‘has become 
again,” wieder geworden—M.], τ. ὁ. Christians, 
and particularly according to their majority, 
Gentile Christians. With regard to them, the 
contradiction of the cursing Judaists, was per- 
fect; they praised the Father of revelation, they 
cursed the children of revelation. 

Ver. 10. Out of the same mouth goeth 
forth.—lt is the sinful mouth as to its fanactical 
excitement in general, but the mouth of Judaism 
in particular as at that time it continued tradition- 
ally to praise God in the Old Testament and began 
with talmudical rancor (the source of the later 
Talmud) to curse the Gospel and its adherents. 

It shall not be thus. [οὐ χρή, ἀδελφοί 
pov, ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι. These things, my 
brethren, ought not so to be.”—M.]. This ad- 
dress to the brethren hardly means only: it is 
not right that these things (denoting the sub- 
stance) are done thus (denoting the form). χρή 
has its full weight and denotes at once that the 
thing must not be done according to the oracle 
[here of course with reference to the revealed 
will of God—M. | and that the thing itself is un- 
profitable (with reference to χράομαι). Moreover 
the Plural ταῦτα and the emphatic οὕτως are to 
be noticed. [χρῇ is ἅπαξ λεγ. in N. T.—M.]. 

Ver. 11. Doth a fountain perchance out 
of the same chink send forth the sweet 


and the bitter 2--- βρύειν, ἅπαξ Aey., to bubble 
over, overflow [Lange renders ‘‘bubble” with an 
evident attempt to find a word as nearly intran- 
sitive as possible. βρύειν is generally intransitive, 
but it is used transitively by Anacreon, 387, 2 
ide πῶς, ἔαρος φανέντος, χάριτες ῥόδα βρύουσιν. It 
means therefore ‘‘to cause to burst forth,” and 
this is the reason why I render ‘‘send forth.” — 


M.], 677, the opening of the fountain [077 is pro- 
bably connected with oy, ὄπτομαι, to see; Words- 
worth adds that so the word non (the place of 


springs) is derived from the Hebrew Py (ayin), 


an eye, Jno. 111. 23.—M.]; the sweet and the 
bitter describe the heterogeneous waters applied 
to blessing and cursing. Such an occurrence is 
unknown in nature, hence in the moral world 
also it only appears as something monstrously 
unnatural. The fountain is not exactly man, but 
the disposition, the heart. Out of the abundance 
of the heart, the mouth (the chink of the foun- 
tain) speaketh (Germ: Whereof the heart is full, 
the mouth overfloweth.—M.]. However here 
again the reference is not to the moral unnatural- 
ness of this duplicity in general but the concrete 
bearing of the reproof on Judaism becomes in- 
creasingly apparent. It is not the Divine pur- 


pose and law that the fountain of Judaism in its 
historical going forth for the world should send 
forth such a contradiction between praising God 
and cursing the children of God. The application 
to the end of the Christian Middle Ages lies near. 


Ver. 12. Can a fig-tree, my brethren, 
yield olives?—The figurative statement of the 
preceding verse is continued in the figures taken 
from nature, ἡ. 6. the idea that nature does not 
bring forth that which is contradictory and in- 
consistent. But if the former figure was meant 
to say: “γοῦν duplicity [double-tonguedness] is 
like a fountain which sends forth at the same 
time sweet water and bitter, if it were possible to 
find such a fountain,” the figures which now 
follow set forth with still greater distinctness the 
impossibility of such a contradiction in nature. 
And this certainly brings out not only the repre- 
hensible and morally unnatural character of du- 
plicity, but it also expresses the idea that one of 
the two must be false, either the cursing or the 
blessing; so that if their cursing the images of 
God be true, their praising God must be lying 
and hypocrisy (Huther). To this must be added 
that in the metaphors which follow the reference 
is to the character itself, as is the case in the 
saying of our Lord Matth. vii. 16.—Thus we in- 
fer their double-mindedness of character which 
is false on the side of godliness (δίψυχος) from 
their duplicity of speech. It may however seem 
strange that James should use several examples 
in order to corroborate the thought that as na- 
ture is always at unity with itself, true and con- 
sistent, so also ought man to be true and consis- 
tent. The multiplying of examples has primarily 
the effect of illustrating more forcibly the general 
application of the law of life, which the Apostle 
had laid down. But the supposition might occur 
that the examples may have also a symbolical 
import. The fig-tree, the symbol of a luxurious 
natural life cannot bring forth olives, the symbols 


of spiritual life. The vine, the symbol of theo- 
| cracy and ultimately of Christianity, cannot pro- 


" 


100 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


duces figs, happiness [7. 6. outward], the fulness of | 


the Jewish natural life. The meaning whereof 
would be asfollows: if you want to be natural Jews 
you cannot bring forth the fruits of the children 
of the Spirit; but if on the other hand, you want to 
be Christians, you must not cherish Jewish ideals, 
sit under the fig-tree of outward prosperity and 
expect to enjoy its fruit. This would explain the 
last figure after this manner: as the salt-spring 
or the salt-current is a mixture which cannot 
yield pure and drinkable refreshment of life, so 
a mixture of Jewish severity and hardness and 
Christian vitality cannot produce the pure water 
of life of the New Covenant. We leave this sym- 
bolism undecided as a whole, but maintain at all 
events that the salt water is designed to denote 
a mixture, in which the two elements pure by 
themselves, have been stained and corrupted. 
Salt water cannot be drunk. This would give a 
train of thought which beginning with duplicity 
in speech passed on to double-mindedness and 
thence again to its final cause, doubleness of be- 
lief, the mixture of legalism and evangelical 
vitality. On similar biblical figurative modes of 
speech among the ancients, see Gebser, p. 290; 
Theile, p. 196. 

The contrast of false and true wisdom in speech as 
to their origin, character and opposite operations. vv. 
13-18. 

Ver 18. Who is wise and intelligent 
among you ?—The same words occur in LXX. 


Deut. i. 13; iv. 6. Heb. 33) ΓΞ Wis- 


dom is the knowledge of ends acquired by enlight- 
enment; intelligence (or understanding, German, 
Einsicht—M. ), the knowledge of relations acquired 
by experience and practice [Wisdom is the gift 
of God, intelligence and knowledge are the re- 
sults of education.—M.]. The Apostle’s question 
sounds like an exclamation of the greatest 
anxiety; it characterizes the desperately bad 
spiritual situation of Israel. Their few wise and 
experienced men are to rise and conjure the 
storm by the wisdom of gentleness. 


Let him show out of a good conversa- 
tion.—James is here more explicit and definite 
in describing the works to which he had referred 
as evidences of faith in ch. ii. Such as flow from 
a good or beautiful life, in which it develops it- 
self. And in order to remove all doubt concern- 
ing the main object he has at heart, he adds 
emphatically: in meekness of wisdom. We 
refer this clause to the whole proposition which 
precedes it: all the works of this good conversa- 
tion are to culminate in meekness of wisdom.— 
The deviating construction of Neander: let him 
show it by his good conduct; ‘his works in 
meekness of wisdom” is recommended by a cer- 
tain viva’ity and pregnancy, but requires the 
verb to be mentally repeated; the αὐτοῦ also 
would be rather in the way while the demand of 
the exhibition of works, so common to James, 
would be rather.obscured. αὐτοῦ is based on Tic, 
who wants to advance true claims to being wise. 
Every weakening of the expression ἐν πραύτητι 
σοφίας either by reading ‘‘meek wisdom” (Bede 
and al.), or ‘‘wise meekness” (Laurentius), 
affects the full sense of the words: the meekness 
wherein wisdom evidences itself (Wiesinger some- 
what different: which is proper to wisdom and 


proceeds therefrom), see ch. i. 19, 20. [Alford: 
“ἴῃ that meekness which is the proper attribute 
of wisdom”—M.]. Wiesinger thinks that it 
describes the disposition attending the doing; 
but James obviously calls for the activity of 
meekness, for meekness itself in corresponding 
acts. It alone was able to deliver the Jewish 
Christians as well as the Jews from fanaticism, 
conjure the storm and save the hope of Israel. 
See the promise Matth. v. 5. 

Ver. 14. But if ye have bitter zeal [emu- 
lation ].—This was the real situation of affairs 
and on this account James addresses them per- 
sonally on the subject. We render ζῆλος not jeal- 
ousy but zeal, for doubtless the reference is 
primarily to a religious and not to a moral 
passion. James means the specifically Jewish 
emulation which was considered by those who 
exhibited it as enthusiasm for the glory of God, 
as Paul describes it Rom. x. ‘The adjective 
shows that it was a false, unholy zeal; πικρόν in- 
dicates passionateness and animosity; this cer- 
tainly turns zeal into jealousy, for religious zeal 
becomes zealotical and fanatical through the 
admixture of jealousy and hostility. ᾿Εριθεία is 
really the envy, rivalry and party-strife rooted 
in venality; so Paul frequently uses the word 
(Rom. ii. 8; 2 Cor. xii. 20 etc.). ἔχετε denotes 
not only an active haying but a real fostering. 

In your hearts.—‘ In contrast with the word 
of the readers who make boast of their wisdom.” 
Huther. 

Boast not.—The offence of their excited 
teaching, striving, judging and cursing was two- 
fold: firstly a haughty self-elevation or proud 
demeanour against others, secondly a more or 
less conscious lying suppression of their better 
consciousness. But both sins were more aggra- 
vated from being directed against the truth itself. 
According to Wiesinger ἀληθεία denotes Christian 
truth (because otherwise ψεύδεσθε would be tau- 
tological: to lie against the truth). Huther 
seems to understand by it only the real fact that 
the condition of the heart is in opposition to the 
word. But with James theocratical truth and 
Christian truth converge into one truth of the re- 
velation of God, the effect and import of which are 
in the lives and consciences of men. The boasting 
and lying therefore was directed not against a 
mere object and against a mere fact; but it was 
a haughty and hypocritical insurrection against 
the very truth which the zealots, with an eyil 
conscience, professed to protect (see Rom. ii. 28). 
It becomes more and more evident that James 
addresses not only the Jewish Christians, but his 
nation in general. 

Ver. 15. [For] this wisdom is not that.— 
“‘Negatio cum vi premissa”’ Theile. αὕτη must be 
taken in connection with ἡ σοφία, the latter is 
therefore introduced ironically here as in Matth. 
xi. 25; 1 Cor. ii. 6; false wisdom the opposite 
of the true. Luther’s translation: ‘* This is not 
the wisdom which cometh down from above” 
must be corrected accordingly. The participle 
κατερχομένη emphatically denotes the continual 
coming down, as in ch. i. 17; it has therefore 
adjective force and must not be resolved into the 
Indicative as do Schneckenburger and al. The 
expression is a little difficult, but it ceases to be 
so if we consider that it is the purpose of James 


CHAP. III. 


10% 


to give the most emphatic negation to the false 
pretence that it was ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη. Hence 
he gives his judgment: it is on the contrary 
(described false by the use of three adjectives) 
earthly, sensuous, devilish. It is earthly as to its 
earthly nature and origin and thus opposed to 
the heavenly (Phil. iii. 19); it is sensuous or 
properly speaking psychical (Luther has the im- 
proper rendering ‘“*human;” the Vulgate better 
‘‘animalis ;”’ Allioli following it ‘‘animal;” Stier 
and de Wette: ‘‘sensuous,’”’ which in considera- 
tion of the modern idea of ‘“‘sensuousness”? may 
pass [for want of a better term—M. ], having its 
origin in a psychically restrained passionate 
constitution deprived of the rule of the Spirit (1 
Cor. ii. 14: 111. 3; Jude 19) and is opposed 
to the spiritual [pneumatical] wisdom—of the 
spiritual life excited by the Holy Ghost; it is 
devilish (δαιμονιώδης is ἅπαξ Aey.), proceeding 
from the devil or inspired by accursed devils 
and is opposed to the Divine. Hornejus has not 
wrongly delineated the moral sides of these evil 
characteristics: ‘‘terrena, quia avaritize dedita est, 
que operibus terrenius inhiat; animalis, quia ad ani- 
mi lubidines accomodatur ; demoniaca, guod ambi- 
tiont et superbie servit, que propria diaboli vitia 
sunt.” These were surely also the characteris- 
ties of Judaistic and Ebionite zealotism. The 
earthly was peculiarly exhibited in their chili- 
astic claims to the rule of the earth, the psychi- 
cal in their fanatical and hateful passions, the 
devilish in their great errors nourished by 
haughtiness and hypocrisy. 

Ver. 16. For where is emulation [zeal] 
and party-strife.—ydp makes this assertion 
the proof of the one preceding it. In what goes 
before James describes a wisdom properly ani- 
mated by evil zeal and party-strife, and desig- 
nates it as earthly, sensuous and develish. The 
proof is that that spirit of emulation and party- 
strife is so disastrous in its consequences. He 
does not say ‘‘where is such wisdom,” for he has 
torn the mask of wisdom from this evil spirit of 
emulation. In its nakedness it is carnal and 
devilish conduct. ζῆλος occurring here without 
the adjective πεκρός might lead one to think at 
once of jealousy, but the zeal is sufficiently cha- 
racterized as evil from being connected with ri- 
valry and party-strife. Everywhere is exhib- 
ited the rebellious element. ἀκαταστασία is not 
only mere disorder but the dissolution of order; 
in the theocratic sense it denotes rebellion 
(Numb. xvi.; Prov. xxvi. 28), in church-life a 
seditious spirit opposing the order of God, who 
has constituted civil order (Rom. xiii. 1, etc.) 
and church order (1 Cor, xiy. 33). 

And all manner of [every] evil work.— 
Φαῦλον might be rendered “fowl” (German 
‘‘faul’’) in an ethical sense. [Shakspeare uses 
the word in the sense of wicked, abominable. 
“A foul fault:” ‘foul profanation.”? The cur- 
rent value of ‘faul’ in German is rotten, lazy, its 
ethical value denotes moral rottenness, evil.— 
M.]. Such was the situation of Jewish affairs 
at that time. The rebellious attitude broke out 
everywhere in insurrections against the Chris- 
tians, which were the prelude of the insurrec- 
tion against the Romans, with numerous epi- 
sodes of evil work, and all proceeding from the 
same fountain of diabolical fanaticism. 

Ver. 17. But the wisdom from above.— 


See Proverbs; the Wisdom of Solomon; Sirach; 
Matth. xi.; 1 Cor. viii. Its first characteristic 
is distinguished from the others, as its principle. 

Consecrated [pure].—dyvy. Really con- 
secrated [or hallowed—M.], ὁ. e. not only pure 
from the influence or even from the inspiration 
of worldly, carnal and devilish motives, but only 
chaste, free from the spirit of apostasy into 
which the fanatical zealots fell, but also ani- 
mated by the Divine Spirit and therefore wholly 
consecrated to the service and glory of God; 
consequently full of a dignified and priestly cha- 
racter. From this principle flow its social vir- 
tues. It is peaceable, ironical (Matth. v. 9), 
equitably disposed (1 Tim. iii. 3), gladly 
yielding ([compliant—M.]. Ἐὐπειθής the oppo- 
site of stubborn, ἀπειθής Tit. iii. 5; not ‘easily 
persuaded,” but well inclined to enter into the 
views and reasons of others, compliant). All this 
as opposed to the contentiousness of false zeal. 
But it not only resists evil, but overcomes evil 
with good; it is full of compassion (in the 
widest sense, in its sympathy with the necessi- 
tous ch. i. 27; ii. 183) and good fruits, in 
which compassion is evidenced. The contrast is 
exhibited in the seditious character and the foul 
doings of false wisdom. So stood in those days 
Christianity over against its enemies and so it 
was to show itself also in the Jewish Christians 
over against Judaism. This attitude of wisdom 
induced James still further to add in its praise 
ἀδιάκριτος, ἀνυπόκριτος! de Wette, Wiesinger and 
Huther render the first word ‘without doubting ;’ 
that is, consequently, confident, decided. This 
would give a good sense if 1. the reference here 
were not to social conduct and 2. if a certain 
correspondency between ἀδιάκριτος and avurd- 
Kpitoc were not necessary.—Now since the word 
(as well as that which follows) has to be taken 
in an active sense, although its primary meaning 
is passive (not distinguished, undecided, so that 
the first word might mean “undivided,” ‘being 
a unit” [einheitlich], there being only one wis- 
dom—‘‘non duplex”? Wetstein; ‘‘simple”’ Nean- 
der—and the second undivided, 7. e., without any 
false admixture) the idea ‘‘not separatistic, not 
sectarian”? seems to lie nearest (so Baumgarten, 
Schneckenburger and al: ‘que non discernit 
homines;’? Luther, Grotius, οἷοι: ‘without par- 
tiality;” Vulgate: ‘‘non judicans ;” Semler: ‘‘non 
temere judicans”’): With this corresponds then 
ἀνυπόκριτος, without hypocrisy, without dissem- 
bling, sincere Rom. xii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 6. [The 
reader is referred for further information on 
ἀδιάκριτος to notes on ch. i. 6-8; ii. 4; on ἀνυπό- 
κριτος to ch. i. 22, 26; ii. 1]. 

Ver. 18. Fruit of righteousness. — This 
dificult expression might be taken literally as 
follows: the fruit which consists in the life- 
righteousness as just described (Genit. appos. 
not only justification, Schneckenburger), is once 
more turned into seed, it is sown in the world, 
primarily among erring brethren, in peace, 2. 6.» 
in the form of peace, in the exhibitions of a 
peaceful demeanour [not εἰς εἰρήνην, ἱ. e., unto 
eternal life, de Wette), and then becomes the 
lot of the children of peace as the harvest of 
peace and the kingdom of peace. But Wie- 
singer rightly calls attention to ch. i. 20. ‘‘For 
the wrath of man worketh not, accomplishes not 
the righteousness of God,” and adds ‘that 


102 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


ee -- τ πς-- --- - --------.- ------- 
{ 


which the readers pretend to realize by their 
contentious wisdom, can only prosper under the 
quickening influence of peace.” The righteous- 
ness of God in its full manifestation in the 
world, for which Christians are yearning and 
for which at that time the Jews in particular 
were yearning also, is a harvest-fruit which has 
to be sown by the peaceful demeanour of the 
peacemakers (roi¢ ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην Dat. actionis. 
Huther). Theterm καρπός, etc., would be there- 
fore “ἃ pregnant expression for: the seed, which 
yields the fruit of righteousness, is sown.” 
(Huther). This construction is also favoured 
by the remark of Huther, made elsewhere, that. 
James is fond of beginning his speech with the 
teleological leading idea. Huther rightly ob- 
serves that the sowing is not only teaching 
proper (Schneckenburger), still it remains a 
fundamental form of evangelical peace-making. 
The dat. comm. in τοῖς ποιοῦσιν ‘*for the children 
of peace,”’ is reluctantly given up and Wiesinger 
would like to connect this meaning with the 
Dat. actionis. It must be observed, however, 
that the world-historical harvest of righteous- 
ness will affect all men, although it will be a 
kingdom of peace only to the children of peace. 
The words of the Apostle therefore were prima- 
rily an exhortation addressed to his readers, 7, 
e., to the twelve tribes to this effect: if you 
really seek the righteousness of God, then pre- 
pare the future harvest of righteousness in such 
wise that as children of peace you scatter the 
seed by a peaceful behaviour (which includes, to 
be sure, the peace of the Christian righteousness 
of faith). Sow peace and you will reap right- 
ousness to your joy. But the idea must be so 
construed that the Apostle is made at the same 
time to lay stress on the fact that the harvest of 
righteousness is prepared under all circum- 
stances. Whether you join in or not: that 
righteousness, for which you suppose to contend 
in zealotical party-strife, is now sown with the 
patience of the sower (see ch. v. 7) by the peace- 
makers who are really in the world, by Chris- 
tians in their exhibitions of peaceful demeanour 
(ἐν εἰρήνῃ hardly denotes mere mode, but rather 
the form of the seed, evangelical peace), and at 
the time of harvest it will appear in its full ma- 
turity. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The fault which James reproves in the 
greater part of this chapter, is nothing but a 
natural manifestation of the egotism of sinful 
human nature, a fault which, although sup- 
pressed, is by no means fully overcome even in 
Christians. It would seem that, as elsewhere, 
there were many among the first readers of this 
Epistle in particular, of whom the author knew 
or at least was afraid that they were more fond 
of speaking than of hearing, more fond of teach- 
ing others than of receiving instruction them- 
selves. He therefore seizes the fault, described 
in ch. i. 19, 26 by the root, at the same time 
pointing out, that those who set themselves up as 
teachers, are in the greatest danger of bringing 
on themselves greater condemnation than their 
hearers. His doctrine in this respect is in perfect 
agreement with that of our Lord, Matt. xii. 36, 37. 


2. There are not a few in our day who set up 
as teachers and leaders of the congregation with- 
out being sufficiently prepared for this important 
and difficult work, who thus render more difficult 
the work of the duly appointed servants of the 
Gospel and scatter the flock without cause; and 
there are others who suffer themselves to be duly 
led and to be prepared for the holy ministry, but 
whose desire to enter the ministry springs from 
very impure motives. How desirable that both 
would seriously lay to heart the teaching of 
James on this subject! [Ministerial preparation 
is not sufficiently appreciated by the uneducated 
portions of the laity and not unfrequently made 
light of by the ecclesiastical authorities. In a 
new country, like America, the supply of minis- 
ters is not equal to the demand and owing to this 
circumstance men morally and spiritually fitted 
but intellectually and educationally unfitted, are 
frequently put in charge of churches, whose best 
interests are apt to be grievously affected in such 
incompetent hands. The moral and spiritual 
qualifications of candidates for the holy ministry 
is a conditio sine qua non, but their possession 
cannot cover or supply intellectual and educa- 
tional deficiency. How can a man preach the 
Gospel intelligently and beneficially, if he is 
ignorant of the first principles of correct inter- 
pretation, completely at sea in scientific theology 
and void of all knowledge of Church History and 
other cognate branches of a theological education? 
If these lines are read by any minister, who is 
conscious of his intellectual deficiency, the writer 
would affectionately entreat him to remember 
that he ought to be thoroughly equipped for the 
study of God’s Holy Word and that he cannot 
teach his people aright, if he does not understand 
aright. The cacoethes docendi is a great evil in 
our days and has ruined many a man, who had 
he only been content to sit awhile on the students’ 
bench might have been eminently successful in 
the ministry.—M.]. It is of course self-evident 
that the Apostle’s warning is not directed against 
a great number of teachers as such, which on the 
contrary is in many respects useful and desirable 
(cf. Eph. iv. 11), but rather against an eager 
pressing into the Ministry of the Word, when 
men touch the Holy dlotis manibus. The language 
of Homer: “οὐκ ἀγαθὴ ἡ πολυκοιρανίη, εἷς κοίρανος 
ἔστω." [The rule of many is not good, let there 
be one ruler” —M. ], applies also to Church gov- 
ernment. 

3. The familiar saying of James ‘‘manifoldly 
we offend all” is frequently but erroneously 
taken and used as a dictum probans of the doctrine 
of the universal sinfulness of human nature. 
The author speaks not of men in general, but of 
Christians in particular. He considers not so 
much gross transgression as sins of infirmity 
and haste; and particularly the danger to which 
the hearer is less exposed than the teacher, 
namely the danger of offending in word. The 
preacher of the Gospel may very easily offend in 
word, on the one hand by setting forth his own 
perverse notions instead of the objectively given 
truth of salvation, or on the other by onesided 
preaching or by want of clearness and simplicity. 
Thus he may even involuntarily give offence and 
estrange his hearers, or on the other hand, he 
may lull them into a false sleep of peace and thus 


CHAP. III. 


108 


do infinitely more harm than good with his 
preaching. How urgently ought he therefore to 
press the exhortation that men should not pre- 
maturely set themselves up as teachers, since 
probably they would do much better to continue 
disciples a little longer! Cf. Heb. v.12. But 
this warning ought not to deter any one who 
sincerely desires to serve God in the ministry of 
the Word and truly loves the Lord and His 
Church. By watchfulness and prayer the ser- 
vant of the Gospel may preserve himself from 
many sins of the tongue. The best corrective, 
in this respect, is doubtless the petition Ps. xix. 
15; exh. 38. 

4. In order to form a correct estimate of the 
magnitude of the sins which Christians also com- 
mit with the tongue, first of all it must not be 
forgotten that the faculty of speech is originally 
a Divine gift bestowed on man. Compare Herder’s 
Origin of Language (1770), a work which is still 
very valuable. This idea was not unfamiliar 
even tothe pagans. Cf. Hesiod: ἔργα καὶ ἡμ., v. 79; 
Horat. Od. 1, 10, vv. 2, 8; Ovid, Fastor., v. 667. 
See also Dr. J. C. Amman’s Dissertat. de loquela, 
Amsterd. 1700, and especially Schubert, History 
of the Soul, 3d ed. 1839, p. 153-168. ‘The word 
uttered is only the outward sound of the beget- 
ting inward language of ideas through the cor- 
poreal medium.’ Ennemoser, 

5. No Christian moralist may omit to bestow 
the greatest possible attention on the doctrine of 
James concerning the sins of the tongue. For 
speaking is also a doing anda doing of such daily 
and manifold occurrence, that its good and its evil 
consequences are all but incalculable. Compare 
the familiar French proverb: ‘‘le style c'est 
Vhomme,” and the motto of the well-known diplo- 
matist Talleyrand ‘le langage est donné pour 
cacher ses pensées.” No wonder that the Old 
Testament abounds in warnings against the per- 
verse use of the tongue; see 6. g. Ps. xv. 24, 34, 
and other passages. 

5. In saying that ‘if any man offend not in 
word, he is a perfect man,” James of course takes 
for granted, that such a mastery of the tongue 
is not solely the fruit of a politic wisdom, but 
rather the fruit of Christian self-control as the 
product of faith and love. He who has learned 
from this principle to set a watch before his lips, 
may with certainty be supposed to have attained 
so high a degree of discretion and life-wisdom, 
that to him the performance of any other duty 
cannot be particularly difficult, still less impos- 
sible. Cf. Prov. x. 19; χ 3; xvii. 27. Butin 
order to obtain and to preserve the mastery of 
one’s tongue, one must before have become master 
of one’s most violent emotions and remain col- 
lected in one’s intercourse with friends and ene- 
mies. Ps. xvi. 32. Cf. the language of Plutarch 
on this head: ‘‘de capienda ex hostibus utilitate,” 
opp. ed. Reiskii, Tom. 6, p. 355 sq; also ‘de 
garrulitate,” Tom. 8, p. 13 sqq. 

7. “Plutarch (de Auditione, p. 137, and in con- 
viv. Sept. p. 556, vol. 6, ed. Reiskii) relates that 
Amasis, King of Egypt sent a sacrifice to Bias 
and requested him to send back the best and the 
worst part thereof: Bias sent back the tongue.” 
Heubner. 

8. James who wrote his Epistle as a warning 


only advert to the harm caused by the abuse of 
the tongue, not (or only slightly) to the profit 
that might accrue to the cause of the Lord by the 
well-ordered use of the power of speech. To 
realize this light-side of the matter ought to be 
the daily effort of every Christian, but more 
particularly that of the Christian teacher. 

9. The words of James (v. 9) would be un- 
meaning, if he meant that only the first man bore 
the likeness of God, which by the fall was wholly 
and eternally lost to his descendants. The 
ravaging power of sin is manifested not in the 
potentiality but in the actuality of man’s likeness 
to God, and the Conf. Belg. art. 14, is therefore 
right in speaking of small remnants (scintillule) 
of the Divine image in fallen man, which are 
perfectly sufficient to take away all his excuses. 
[Art. IX. of the Articles of Religion in the Church 
of England and the Prot. Ep. Church in the U. 5. 
Says: ‘‘man is very far gone from original right- 
eousness.”—M.]. Lange (Positive Dogmatik, p. 
299) is perfectly right in saying that ‘‘man is the 
image of God, z. 6. the visible form of the Infinite 
in the totality of his being. The Being of God con- 
sists in His eternally embracing Himself perfectly 
in the clearness and liberty of His Being, in that 
He is the Absolute Spirit. And in like manner the 
being of the image of God consists in man’s living 
in himself as a spirit, in his continually taking 
back the whole manifoldness of his existence 
into the unity of his consciousness and out of it 
re-forming it anew.” 

10. The doctrine of James (vv. 11, 12) exhib- 
its a remarkable agreement with the sayings of 
Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matth. vii. 
16-19; Luke vi. 43-45); a new proof that the 
publication of the fundamental law of the king- 
dom of heaven could not be forgotten by this 
servant of the Lord. 

11. The bearing of James concerning the wis- 
dom, which is from above (vy. 18 ete.) is remark- 
able for its recalling not only many of the prov- 
erbs of Solomon but also many cognate ideas in 
Jesus Sirach and the Book of Wisdom. James, 
although occupying a purely evangelical stand- 
point, is nevertheless full of the ethical portion 
of the Old Testament, and in part even of the 
deutero-canonical writings. However it is im- 
possible to examine the doctrine of this entire 
chapter more closely without discovering that 
the author himself has and exemplifies that 
heavenly wisdom, which in vv. 16, 17 he has so 
admirably and beautifully delineated as con- 
trasted with earthly wisdom. 

12. Very important is the connection of 
knowledge and life, on which James here insists. 
He who does not prove his wisdom by works, 
which have the seal of a meek disposition, con- 
tradicts himself and gives the lie to his confes- 
sion of the Lord, which he is constantly making. 
He may boast in the possession of the truth but 
he is an opponent of the truth, if he does not 
receive it as the principle of his life; cf. 1 Jno. 
iv. 20, 21. His wisdom, as contrasted with that 
from above, is purely earthly, as contrasted with 
that of the pneumatical man purely psychical, as 
contrasted with that of good angels (cf. 1 Pet. i. 
12), even devilish. 

13. ‘‘The peaceable scatter in peace the seed 


to believers, from the nature of the case could | of genuine Christian wisdom, which grows into 


104 


the harvest of righteousness. This applies not 
only to teachers but to every one who has received 
from God wisdom and the gift to influence 
others.”’ Von Gerlach. 

14. The seven qualities which James attributes 
to the wisdom from above (Υ. 17) are nothing but 
the seven colours of the one ray of light of heay- 
enly truth, which has been revealed and has 
appeared in Christ Himself. He is therefore 
supremely entitled to the name ‘the Wisdom of 
God” (Luke xi. 49). 

15. Even the closing sentences of this instruc- 
tion reécho notes from the Sermon on the Mount, 
Matth. v. 8, 9. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


A. vv. 1-12. 


The lust of rule one of the most ancient dis- 
eases in the Church of Christ.—Evyen the mani- 
fold warnings of Christ (Matth. xviii. 1; Jno. 
xiii. 12-17 and other passages) have been insuf- 
ficient hitherto to prevent disputes about prece- 
dency among those who confess Him.—The 
higher the position we hold before others, the 
greater will be our responsibility.—‘* Manifoldly 
we offend all.” The remaining infirmity of the 
elect.—The truth, solemnity and comfort of this 
saying.—The use and abuse which may be and 
at different times have been made of this saying. 
—How the knowledge of our own, manifold in- 
firmities ought to make us judge others leniently. 
—No matter how much the Christian may of- 
fend, he ought nevertheless to advance.—Chris- 
tian self-control.—Man, lord of the animal crea- 
tion but not lord of himself.—Even the bravest 
sailor suffers each time ship-wreck on the rocks 
of the tongue.—The power of the tongue evident 
1, from the harm it can do, 2, from the utter 
impossibility of wholly subduing it.—The faculty 
of speech which makes man superior to the 
beasts is not seldom the means of making him 
inferior to them.—The sad part acted by the evil 
tongue in every century of the history of the 
Christian Church.—The sinful tongue is the 
sinful man. Sinful man is able to raise himself 
above every other irrational creature but he is 
unable to raise himself above his own nature.— 
That which is impossible with men, is possible 
with God.—The sad want of many men’s con- 
formity to their proper being.—How extremes 
meet also in the use of the tongue.—That which 
is never seen united in nature, is often simulta- 
neously found present in men.—Man at once a 
lord and a slave (v. 5. ‘*Behold how small a fire 
kindleth how great a forest.’”’) Suitable text for 
a Reformation-sermon. [That is a sermon 
preached on the festival of the Reformation, 
which in Germany is kept October 31, the anni- 
versary of Luther’s fastening the 95 theses to the 
door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg A. D. 
1517—M. ].—There is not a thumb’s breadth be- 
tween our strong side and our weak side.—The 
melancholy inconsistency and the still sadder 
consistency of the abuse of the tongue. 

Srarke:—He who wants to teach others in 
spiritual things, ought to be first well established 
himself. A man must be a pure and obedient 
sheep of Christ before he can become a shepherd. 
Hos. iv. 6.—Many, although they have not Divine 


, 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


wisdom and experience but possess only a literal 
knowledge, acquired not in the school of the 
Holy Ghost, but from the books and writings of 
men, straightway presume to be guides of the 
blind ete. Rom. ii. 18. 

QuESNEL:—If all men have to observe caution 
in speech, how much more those, whose office 
requires them frequently and religiously to dis- 
course of holy things? Rom. xy. 18.—Men must 
fairly strive to attain evangelical perfection, es- 
pecially if they seek to be employed in the Min- 
istry, 2 Tim. 111. 17.— 

OsIANDER:—If a man is able to govern his 
tongue so effectually as not to utter any thing 
censurable, he is doubtless equally able so to 
govern and guide his body as not to indulge in 
any vice, Job xxvii. 4,5.—Many men are more 
unruly than a horse—men whom God by the in- 
fliction of severe punishment has to make some- 
what orderly. David cautions us against this 
disposition Ps. xxxii. 9.—If irrational creatures 
suffer themselves to be guided and ruled, how 
much rather ought rational creatures suffer it 
likewise? Is. i. 3. 

LurHer:—The tongue guides men either to 
virtue or to vice, 1 Cor. xv. 88.—The tongue of 
a Christian is ruled only with the bridle of faith 
and love, Ps. exvi. 10. 

ΟΥΈΒΝΕΙ, :—Who knows not how to govern his 
tongue, is like a passenger on a ship without 
rudder in the open sea exposed to the fury of the 
storm.—If the rudder of our body is controlled 
by the Spirit of God, we sail in safety on the sea 
of the world, Rom. viii. 14. 

CramER:—Many have fallen by the edge of the 
sword, but infinitely more by evil tongues, Sir. 
Xxviii. 21. 

Lanoi op.:—How easily may an uncircumcised 
and untamed tongue cause discord in a whole 
family, so that the best of friends fall out with 
one another! Sir. xxvili. 15, 16.—God has dis- 
tinguished us from the brutes by the use of the 
tongue, and we are distinguished from one ano- 
ther by the good or evil use we make of it, Ps. 
cxix. 28. 

Hepincer:—Evil tongues and bad lungs have 
caused the death of many. The former spiritu- 
ally and mostly. How much murder is commit- 
ted with the tongue? how forward and swift is 
this poor member to wound the conscience? 
Whoso is wise puts a lock to his lips. Sir. xxii. 
33—O God, create us a new tongue, that we may 
praise Thee! Prov. xviii. 21.— 

QuesnEL:—There is no sin, of which the 
tongue may not be the cause and instrument, and 
which as a poisoned seed it may not contain, 
Matth. xv. 18.—Think, O ye liars and slanderers, 
how shameful and hurtful a member ye carry in 
your mouth! Ps. lvii. 5.—Whoso desires to be 
delivered from the sins of the tongue must par- 
ticularly apply himself to work in faith at the 
bottom of his heart by repentance and renova- 
tion, Matth. xii. 83.—As the Holy Spirit did set 
on fire the tongues of the Apostles with godly 
zeal, so contrariwise the spirit of hell sets on 
fire the tongues of the ungodly with venom and 
great malice to crush the good name and reputa- 
tion of their neighbour, Acts ii. 8, 4, 11.—The 
diligence of men is able to change the wildest 
natures of beasts! but none is able to change the 


CHAP. III. 


105 


Fi en TD > a nn nn nn ὐξορε τ σϑ εξ δ σπΠοΠοἔἘὁἕΨἕΨοεΨέΕιΝσ πο ππσοστϑ σον τοι δ ΟΝ 9 κἰ Ῥεν θεὲ 


sinful nature of men, save the Wisdom and Om- 
nipotence of God, Ez. xxxvi. 26.—God must 
needs take a coal from His altar and touch our 
tongue or it cannot be tamed. We stammer by 
nature like Moses, until God makes us eloquent, 
Is. vi. 5.—The tongue of the hellish serpent has 
thrown us into the greatest confusion, but the 
tongues of the Holy Ghost show us again the 
way to eternal peace, Acts ii. 4, 38.—We shun 
serpents, yet consort with people that carry 
poison in their mouths, Ps. xliv. 4; ly. 22.—How 
ill-suited it is that those should engage in the 
praises of God, the whole of whose lives dishon- 
ours God! A golden collar cannot be so ill-be- 
coming to a sow covered with filth and dirt as 
the praise of God to a filthy sinner, Am. y. 23.— 

Lane op.:—The nobility of human nature is 
very exalted and no man may offend it in word 
or deed without sinning against God, Gen. ix. 6. 
—We ought to honour the image of God in every 
man be he never so bad, 1 Jno. iv. 12. 

SrarKE:—Man is so perverse, that there is 
nothing left in the world which is like him. He 
wants to render impossibilities possible, to do 
good and evil at the same time, which is con- 
trary to the whole order of nature, Eccl. i. 15; 
Ps. lviii. 4.—If we want to show others their fol- 
lies and sins, we must not do it in boisterous scold- 
ing, but in compassionating brotherly love, 2 
Tim. ii. 24, 25.—Words are fruits enabling us to 
form an estimate of the heart, 7. 6. the tree which 
bears them; if this is pure, the others are not 
bad, Matth. xii. 28. 

Stier :—Future accountability is solemn and 
difficult even in the case of our ownsoul. Who 
would lightly undertake to be accountable for 
the souls of others? Indeed is it not written, 
“Many are called but few chosen’”—who will 
call himself in order to fall with so much more 
surety into condemnation? Many did it then, 
and alas! many do it now. ‘But howsoever, 
let me, I pray thee, also run after Cushi,” said 
Ahimaaz the son of Zadok, and would not be dis- 
suaded when he was told ‘thou hast no good 
tidings ready.” He stuck to his “let me run.” 
(2 Sam. xviii. 19-23). There are many such 
teachers and runners, who are not sent. They 
surely are not the true teachers and masters 
that shall shine as the brightness of the firma- 
ment (Dan. xii. 3),—but they will stand illy.— 
‘*Manifoldly we offend all’—James includes 
himself in this confession in order to put to 
shame the proud brethren. Not indeed that he 
intended to expose the supposed errors of his 
Divinely-inspired Epistle to their criticism or 
now to ours, but he rather meant solemnly to 
assert respecting life in general apart from the 
sacred office, that the perfect man who does not 
even trip in a word, cannot be found anywhere. 
Even the Apostles were assuredly not sinless, 
holy and infallible in their daily and hourly 
private life; the promise of the Holy Ghost to 
guard them from all error related only to their 
sacred office, just as it was with reference to 
their office and the principal and fundamental 
truths of their message that the seventy as well 
as the twelve were told ‘He that heareth you, 
heareth me.”—Although the proud tongue may 
boast, I can be silent, or I can thoroughly dis- 
semble myself—it is a thing beyond its control, 

8 


there it is brought to shame. The most expert 
hypocrite can never reach such a point of dis- 
sembling as to prevent its failing him even ina 
word; the heart runs over, the hell within bursts 
out onthe tongue. Our speech is and remains the 
nearest, surest and most irresistible efluence of 
the heart. What follows lastly from James’s ser- 
mon against the sins of the tongue? Whither they 
lead—to the world full of unrighteousness, whence 
they come—from the inward abyss of corruption 
—he has shown; it is not difficult to apply here 
the only remedy. 

Hevuspner:—We are more on our guard with 
respect to sins in deed than with respect to sins 
in word.—Whoso fails to govern his tongue is like 
a rider on an unruly horse, or like a sailor in a 
ship without a rudder.—The tongue is a channel 
which transmits the evil of hell.—An wncondi- 
tional impossibility to tame the tongue does not 
exist. If thy tongue is cursing, it is unfitted for 
praise. 

VIEDEBANDT:—The rule of the tongue is more 
important than the rule of the world.—What an 
evil full of deadly poison is many a newspaper 
tongue!—If Satan has your heart, he also rules 
your tongue. The tongue and the heart are only 
ἃ span apart. 

NEANDER:—James attacks the being of mock 
piety at all points. Such is that pious cant 
which while it utters the praises of God in words, 
hatefully censures and condemns men, in whom 
the image of God ought to be honoured, aside. 
—Thus James points out the fundamental idea 
of this whole Epistle, that everything depends 
on that disposition which gives direction to a 
man’s whole life, the recognition of which truth 
was as remote as possible from that tendency, 
attacked by him at all points, which only con- 
siders the outward, single acts, and the appear- 
ance of things. 

JaKosi:—The Apostle shows from the har- 
mony, visible in universal creation, that it is un- 
natural and therefore ungodly and therefore dis- 
pleasing to God if the same tongue is used in 
the service of heaven and hell, and if praises and 
curses proceed out of the same mouth God, 
says another Apostle, is a God of order. Because 
the fig-tree, the olive tree and the vine bear fruit 
each according to its kind, figs, olives and grapes, 
and because sweet fountains and salt fountains 
always send forth the same kind of water and 
because of this order in nature, God rejoices in 
all his works (Ps. civ. 31), and looking down 
from heaven upon the earth, behold, all things 
are very good. Therefore it cannot be good and 
well-pleasing to God, if contrary to the Divinely 
appointed order the gifts and faculties intrusted 
to man are employed in opposite uses, if the 
same tongue which has just stammered the 
praise of God, utters shameful words, folly and 
unseemly jests. Therefore as long as this con- 
tinues.to be done among Christians, so long as 
we who have just had on our tongue the sweet 
word of God, indulge in bitter revilings of those 
who share with us the greatest of all blessings, 
as long as out of the same opening of the mouth 
there flow such sweet and such bitter streams, so 
long the sad dissension of sin continues in us 
and we do not yet stand in the unity and truth 
of the Divine life. 


106 


Lisco:—The sins of the tongue: 1. They are 
of all sins the most corrupt; 2, They are»of all 
sins, the most difficult to be avoided.—He who 
governs himself solves the problem of the Chris- 
tian life.—The tongue 1, is the communicator of 
our thoughts and 2, ought to be solely the media- 
tor of good. 

Porusszky: (vv. 1, 2):—Religious conversa- 
tion in social life.—(vv. 8-12). The tongue of 
scandal. 

Brecx:—Three golden rules for a Christian’s 
life: 1, have humility in your heart (vv. 1, 2), 
2, have truth in your mouth (vy. 3-9), 3, practise 
faithfulness in your life (vv. 10-12). 

W. Horackxer (Sermons p. 635):—Our speak- 
ing tongue one of the greatest gifts of God’s 
grace. 

Vv.1-10. Epistle for the 16th Sunday after 
Trinity in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and else- 
where. ; 

Grerok:—Watch thy tongue: 1, It looks so 
little and so small 2, Yet worketh such great 
things for all; 3, Kindles many a fire of hell, 4, 
Yet heaven has ordered it so well [German: 1, 
Sie ist nur klein und scheint gering 2, und richtet 
an so grosse Ding ; 3, sie hat manch Hollenfewer ent- 
flammt 4, und fiihrt doch ein so himmlish Amt.—M. ]. 

Rupegti:—Several oft-forgotten duties to be 
practised by the Christian in order that he may 
become master of his tongue in his intercourse 
with others. 

Aut:—The evil word towards one’s neighbour. 


B. vv. 13-18. 


VV. 18-18. Epistle for Quinquagesima Sunday 
in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and elsewhere. 

The difference between abstract knowledge of 
Christian truth and true life-wisdom.—The tree is 
known by its fruit.—Meek wisdom the crown of 
Christian virtue.—The intimate union of truth 
and love on Christian ground. The wisdom 
which is from above, and the wisdom which is 
from beneath; the sevenfold more exalted char- 
acter of the former and the threefold baseness 
of the latter.—The wisdom from above: 1, how 
it is evidenced, 2, how it is rewarded, 3, how it 
is learned.—The harvest feast of the peaceable: 
1, the seed, 2, the fruit, 3, the harvest-joy; here 
in its beginning, hereafter in its perfection.— 
James himself is in his Epistle a continuing 
’ proof of the truth of what he says, vv. 13-18. 

Srarke:—The possession of a natural, wise, 
prudent understanding is a great gift of God, but 
to be truly enlightened with the light of truth is 
invaluable, Prov. iii. 13; 2 Cor. iv. 6. 

Cramer:—Our Christianity is then insepara- 
ble, for a good understanding have all they that 
do His commandments, Ps. cxi. 10.—Many men’s 
meekness is a worm-eaten fruit of nature. They 
are rather tamed lions than meek sheep of Christ, 
Matth. xi. 29.— 

Nova Bret. Tiis.:—Wisdom and meekness are 
noble virtues which ought to regulate the whole 
of our conversation; they are the springs of all 
- other virtues, Prov. xix. 2.—Those who are ready 
to dispute and quarrel and are ever at odds with 
their neighbour, exhibit an infallible token that 
they are still lacking true wisdom, Prov. xviii. 6; 
χχ. 3.— 

QuesweL:—A teacher above all things should 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


be an enemy of all disputing and contention, 2 
Tim. ii. 24. 

CRAMER :—Cunning is not wisdom. Hence lit- 
tle wisdom in the fear of God is better than much 
wisdom allied to contempt of God, Sir. xix. 
21.— 

QuresneL :—The wisdom of the world is very 
different from the wisdom of the Gospel. It is 
only cunning wisdom whose end is to rule on 
earth, but which is ruled itself by nothing but 
brutal lusts, 1 Cor. i. 21; ii. 7, 8.—Sin punishes 


itself even in this world, because man in the ser- 


vice of it does not enjoy his life on account of the 
great trouble and annoyance to which sin puts 
him, Ps. xxxii. 10.— 

CraMer:—As smoke causes pain to the eyes 
and prevents their seeing distinctly, soit happens 
to reason and wisdom, for if it is disturbed by 
the passions, it cannot see any thing and decide 
what is white or black, right or wrong.—The 
most simple Christian who practises these seven 
qualities of virtue will be wiser than the seven 
sages of Greece. Remember only one for each 
day of the week.—Those who scatter the poison 
of their evil heart in anger, contention and brawl- 
ing, will reap fromit the unhappy fruit of eternal 
trouble, tribulation and anguish, Rom. ii. 8, 9.— 
Be content, ye peacemakers, if your souls are 
afraid to dwell with those that hate peace, 
(Ps. exx. 6), remember that ye shall hereafter 
dwell forever in a peaceable habitation, Is. xxxii, 
18.— 

Srrer:—To be only prudent and understanding 
does not amount to much and is a very doubtful 
and suspicious thing, but to be wise and prudent, 
that is the right thing.—Every good gift as well 
as true wisdom is from above, but that which is 
passed off for it with lying against the truth, all 
false wisdom is not from heaven, but earthly; 
not from the Spirit of God but human, from man’s 
soul, flesh and blood; not from Christ the King 
of the kingdom of God, the destroyer of the works 
of the devil, but rather devilish still, from the 
influence and seduction of evil spirits. Indeed 
on this profound saying of James might be writ- 
ten a history of all knowledge falsely so called, 
of all so-called philosophy or even theology.—All 
the trouble and confusion in the Church, all the 
disorder and unruliness or rebellion of self-will 
opposing the Spirit of God originates in the brawl- 
ing of carnality; hence schism, factions, sects, 
hence other evils and particularly also evil hypo- 
crisy under coéreed unity. Even in the world 
and in things earthly a family and many a city 
give unceasing testimony that good cannot ma- 
ture under the influence of envy and contention, 
but that these conduce to nothing but evil. Still 
more lamentable and ravaging are the conten- 
tions concerning God’s Word in the house and 
city of God, the carnal wrangling of brethren and 
members in Christ.—Many are officiously engaged 
in imparting to others opinions, which are their 
truths and in disputing away errors—but where 
is the good fruit of all these efforts? whom have 
they improved thereby, converted and won for 
the kingdom of heaven? On the other hand look 
at many quiet people in the land: they make no 
noise, they do not deal in great things, they walk 
everywhere in meekness and gentleness—but 
wherever they go they carry something along 


CHAP. III. 13-18. 


107 


with them, which passes from them like a breath 
of life;—the words which they utter at the right 
time, are seeds—all their walk and work burst 
into fruitfulness around them with a silent, deep 
power, and many things are recorded on high as 
the fruit of their righteousness, whereof men 
know and suspect nothing. Grace works by them, 
they live in love and this is their deep power.— 
“Fruits, gentlemen, fruits that shall make men 
whole.”? It was this which the king of Prussia 
demanded of the University of Kénigsberg, and 
truly it was a great royal word, a Solomonic 
word, in its time. Wholesome, healthy fruits 
will grow where healthy seed has been sown, but 
the seed itself had before grown as the produce 
of ripe fruit; thus righteousness is sown and 
transmitted from one to another. 

Hevsner: (v. 15).—This is a description truly 
applicable to those who by their writings,— 
either immoral, provoking vice, or irreligious, 
undermining the faith of Christians—especially 
if they exhibit skill and genius, have exerted the 
influence of devils upon the world. The subtle 
and disguised ones are the worst; subtle poison 
insinuates itself most thoroughly.—Earthly wis- 
dom effects nothing good for eternity.— 

Neanpver:—Holy Scripture often designates, 
by the name of the flesh, all evil, whatever is op- 
posed to the Spirit of God, to the Divine life. If 
the word is used in this general sense, it includes 
also man’s spiritual nature, reason and the soul, 
as far as it has not been made subject to the Di- 
vine Spirit, but persists in its selfish being, pre- 
tends to be something by itself, independent of 
God, without (extra) God and hence opposed to 
Him. The term flesh in this biblical sense in- 
cludes all these ideas. Its meaning is by no 
means restricted to what we call flesh, sensuality 
in the narrower sense of the word. Now if we 
take flesh in this more general sense, biblical 
usage distinguishes it from that which in the 
narrower sense is designated as psychical, z.e., the 
spiritual [part of man], as far as it is made not 
to conform to God, but to conform to the world 
[German: ‘In sofern es nicht vergdttlicht ist, 
sondern verweltlicht.”’]. Reason however culti- 
vated remains still within the sphere of the psy- 
chical [%. 6. the rational soul not only not in- 
fluenced by the Divine Spirit but rather influenced 
by the physical and the cosmical. The German for 
psychical is seelisch, as stated before.—M.]. The 
seed of whatever is truly good in action, proceed- 
ing from righteousness, can only prosper where 
peace reigns and with those, the end and aim of 
whose actions is peace. Where all is strife, no- 
thing truly Christian can prosper. . 

Jaxkosi (on the feast of the ingathering of the 
harvest) :—What a description of wisdom! Truly 
such wisdom cometh from above, from the Father 
of Light with whom every thing is light, and pure 
and holy; thence it cometh as the best and most 
perfect light, communicated by Him, in whom is 
treasured up the fulness of all good, communi- 
cated by the Son of Eternal Wisdom and Love to 
all those, who renouncing earthly, human and 
devilish wisdom, and looking to Him alone in 
simplicity of faith, suffer Him to create in them 
a pure heart and receive a new sure spirit, the 
spirit of truth, which is also for this very reason 
the spirit of true wisdom. 


PorusszkKy:—Wisdom in action.—Envy sets 
us at variance 1, with God, 2, with man, 3, with 
ourselves.— 

Breck:—Heayenly wisdom the fountain of 
earthly peace. 

Scumatrz: The fire of discord. 

Késtiin:—Of true, Christian wisdom as con- 
trasted with false, earthly wisdom. 

Aut:—With the wisdom of Christians we will 
overcome the evil of time. 

[vy. 2. Barrow :—To offend originally signifies 
to impinge (infringe), to stumble upon somewhat 
lying across our way, so as thereby to be cast 
down, or at least to be disordered in our posture, 
and stopped in our progress: whence it is well 
transferred to our being through any incident 
temptation brought into sin, whereby a man is 
thrown down, or bowed from his upright state 
and interrupted from prosecuting a steady course 
of piety and virtue. By an opposite manner of 
speaking (Ps. xxxvii. 23, 24) our tenor of life is 
called a way, our conversation walking, our actions 
steps, our observing good laws uprighiness, our 
transgression of them tripping, faltering, falling. 
By not offending in word, we may then conceive 
to be understood such a constant restraint and 
such a careful guidance of our tongue, that it 
doth not transgress the rules prescribed by the 
Divine law, or by good reason; that it thwarteth 
not the natural ends and proper uses for which 
it was framed, to which it is fitted; such as 
chiefly are promoting God’s glory, our neighbour’s 
benefit, and our own true welfare.— 

— A constant governance of our speech ac- 
cording to duty and reason is a high instance and 
a special argument of a thoroughly sincere and 
solid goodness.— 

— The offences of speech are various. 1. 
Some of them are committed against God, and 
confront piety; 2. others against our neighbour, 
and violate justice, charity, or peace; 3. others 
against ourselves, infringing sobriety, discretion, 
or modesty; 4. some are of a more general and 
abstracted nature, rambling through all matters, 
and crossing all the heads of duty.— 

Cf. on this subject Dr. Barrow’s sermon on 
this text; Bp. Butler on the Government of the 
Tongue, an abstract of which is here given; Bp. 
Taylor’s Sermons on the Good and Evil Tongue; 
On Slander and Flattery; On the Duties of the 
Tongue. 

Abstract of Butler’s Sermon on the Govern- 
ment of the Tongue. (Bohn’s edition.) 

“One of the most material restraints under 
which virtue places us in the obligation of ‘brid- 
ling the tongue.’”” Let us then ask 

1. What vice is opposed to this precept? and 

2. When can a man be fairly said to act up to it? 

1. The vice alluded to is not evil-speaking from 
malice, nor from selfish design. It is talkative- 
ness or a disposition to talk at random without 
thought of doing either good or harm. Now 
talkative persons, when other subjects fail them, 
will indulge in scandal or divulge secrets; or, 
further, they will go on to invent matter, and all 
in order to engage attention; and if a quarrel 
ensue, they will defame and revile their enemy, 
but without malice. 

As all our faculties may be made instruments 
of evil, so also the tongue. Deliberate and wilful 


108 


falsehood, indulged in from malice or revenge, 
does not arise from having no government of the 
tongue. But there is a vicious habit, without 
malice, which arises from a desire to arrest at- 
tention; and in these people the very least thing 
excites the tongue, and so gives birth to innu- 
merable evils, especially to strife. Its effects 
are often as bad as those of malice or envy; it 
wrongly distributes praise and blame, and, being 
used at random, always does harm. | 

2. In what does the government of the tongue 
consist? We are to measure our faculties by the 
end for which they have been given tous. The 
end of speech clearly is to communicate our 
thoughts to each other, either for real business 
or for enjoyment. In this secondary use, it con- 
tributes to promote friendship, and so is service- 
able to virtue and its tendency is to general 
good. 

Corresponding to these two uses is the abuse 
of speech. Astoits primary end, deceit in busi- 
ness does not come within our scope. It is inits 
secondary sense that it becomes the object of our 
inquiry, for the government of the tongue relates 
chiefly to what we call Conversation. Certain 
cautions are to be observed in governing the 
tongue. First, that there is a fit time to speak 
and a time to keep silence. This rule is too 
often forgotten; and they who forget it, too 
often, if they amuse at all, amuse at their own 
expense. The times for silence are when they 
are in company of their superiors, or when the 
discourse is of subjects above themselves; and 
these obvious rules are generally passed over by 
those who in their talkative mood forget that the 
very essence of conversation is that it should be 
mutual, and talkative persons are generally dis- 
regarded. Men, then, should be silent, both 
when they have nothing to say, or nothing but 
what were better left unsaid.— 

In talking on indifferent subjects, the first rule 
is not to spend too much time on them; the 
second, to be quite sure, that they are indifferent. 
Conversation about other people and their matters 
is often very dangerous; as in such cases we 
cannot always be indifferent and neutral, or es- 
cape being drawn into rivalry. But as we can- 
not entirely avoid speaking of others, we should 
take care that what we say, be true. It is im- 
portant to know the characters of the bad as 
well as the good, and abuse will scarcely follow, 
if these two rules be observed: Ist, That to 
speak evil of a man undeservedly is worse than to 
speak good of him undeservedly, for the former 
is a direct injury to the person as well as to 
society. 2nd, That a good man will always speak 
all the good which he can of his fellows, and 
never any harm unless he has some positive 
reason for so doing; for example, just indigna- 
tion against villany, or to prevent the innocent 
from being deceived. For we must always study 
justice: and we do justice to society at large by 
exposing bad characters. 

‘Those who observe the above cautions and 
precepts have due government over their tongues. 
—M. |]. 

πὸ 8, WorpswortH:—St. James follows up 
the metaphor of the preceding verse with an 
argument a fortiori. We can rule irrational 
animals with a bit; how much more ought we to 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


beable to govern ourselves! And if we rule our 
tongues, we do in fact govern the whole man; for 
the tongue is to man what a bit is to horses, and 
a rudder is to ships; it rules the whole; let it 
therefore be governed aright.—M. ]. 

[v. 5. Viren, Georgic 2, 303. 

‘Nam sepe incautis pastoribus excidit ignis, 
Qui furtim pingui primim sub cortice tectus 
Robora comprendit, frondesque elapsus in altas 
Ingentem ccelo sonitum dedit; inde secutus 
Per ramos victor, perque alta cacumina regnat 
Et totum involvit flammis nemus ; et ruit atram 
Ad coelum picea crassus fuligine nubem; 
Presertim si tempestas ἃ vertice sylvis 
Incubuit, glomeratque ferens incendia ventus.” 

For the benefit of those not familiar with 
Latin, I subjoin Davidson’s translation, The 
quotation itself mutatis mutandis forcibly illus- 
trates the incendiary ravages of the tongue. 

‘“‘ For fire is often let fall from the unwary shepherds 
Which at first secretly lurking under the unctuous bark, 
Catches ie solid wood, and shooting up into the topmost 
Raises a San cok liane to heaven: thence pursuing it# way, 
Reigns victorious among the branches and the lofty tops, 
Involves the whole grove in flames, and darts the black 

Cloud to heaven, condensed in pitchy vapor; 

Chiefly if a storm overhead rests its fury on the woods, 

And the driving wind whirls the flames aloft.”—M.]. 

[v. 6. WorpswortH:—That world of iniquity, 
that universe of mischief, as containing within 
it the elements of all mischief; as the world con- 
tains within itself mineral combustibles and 
volcanic fires, and electric fluid, which may blaze 
forth into a conflagration. 

— By the faculty of speech man is distin- 
guished from the rest of creation: by it his 
thoughts are borne, as upon eagles’ wings, to the 
remotest shores, and are carried to distant ages; 
by it they are endued with the attributes of om- 
nipresence and immortality; by it men are re- 
claimed from savage ignorance; by it cities are 
built and are peopled, laws promulgated, alli- 
ances formed, leagues made; by it men are ex- 
cited to deeds of heroic valor, and to prefer 
eternity to time, and the good of their country 
to their own; through it the affairs of the world 
are transacted; it negotiates the traffic of com- 
merce, and exchanges the produce of our soil 
and climate for that of another; it pleads the 
cause of the innocent, and checks the course of 
the oppressor; it gives vent to the tenderest 
emotions; it cheers the dreariness of life. By 
it virtuous deeds of men are proclaimed to the 
world with a trumpet’s voice; by it the memory 
of the dead is kept alive in families. It is the 
teacher of arts and sciences, the interpreter of 
poetic visions, and of subtle theories of philo- 
sophy; it is the rudder and helm by which the 
state of the world is steered; it is the instrument 
by which the Gospel of Christ is preached to all 
nations, and the Scriptures sound in the ears of 
the Church, and the world unites in prayer and 
praise to the Giver of all good, and the chorus 
of Saints and Angels pours forth hallelujahs 
before His throne. 

Such being the prerogatives of speech, it is a 
heinous sin to pervert the heavenly faculty, to 
insult the Name of the Giver Himself, or 
to injure man, made in the image of God. 
All true Christians will put away profane 
and impure language, calumny and slander, 
injurious to God’s honour, the welfare of society, 
and their own eternal salvation. They will ab- 


CHAP. IV. 1-3. 


hor it worse than pestilence, and they will pray) but Babel. 


109 


Cf. Bp. Sanderson I. pp. 214, 350; 


to Him from whom are the preparations of the | and see Clemens Rom. I. capp. 3-9.—M.]. 


heart, and who maketh the dumb and the deaf, 
the seeing and the blind, who quickened the slow 
speech of His servant Moses, and put words of 
fire into his mouth, and whose Spirit on the Day 
of Pentecost descended in tongues of fire on the 
Apostles, and filled them with holy eloquence, so 
to direct their thoughts and words, that both 
now and hereafter they may ever sing His praise. 
—M.]. 

Tyo. Vayikra ΒΑΒΒΑ: 3 33:—‘‘ Rabbi Sim- 
eon, the son of Gamaliel, said to his servant To- 
bias, Go and bring me some good food from the 
market: the servant went and brought tongues. 
At another time, he said to the same servant, Go 
and buy me some bad food: the servant went and 
bought tongues. The master said, What is the 
reason that when I ordered thee to buy me good 
and bad food, thou didst bring tongues? The 
servant answered, From the tongue both good and 
evil come to man: if it be good, there is nothing 
better; if bad, there is nothing worse.’’—M. ]. 


[v. 18. Pytz :—Whatever Christian convert or 
Jewish zealot, therefore, would be indeed a mas- 
ter of religious wisdom, let him show his wisdom 
first in the suppression of this wretched habit, 
and in reducing himself to a meek and charita- 
ble disposition towards his brethren.—M. ]. 

[v. 14. ΒΡ. Hatu:—Never brag vainly that ye 
are Christians: and do not shame and contradict 
that truth which ye profess, by a real denial of 
the profession thereof.—M. ]. 


[v. 16. WorpswortH :—Strife and party-spirit 
would destroy Sion, and can build up nothing 


[HerBert :— 

Be calm in arguing, for fierceness makes 

Error a fault and truth discourtesy : 

Why should I feel another man’s mistakes 

More than his sickness or his poverty ? 

In love 1 should: but anger is not love; 

Nor wisdom neither; therefore gently move. 

[—fortiter in re, leniter in modo.—M. 

[On the meaning and use of the term ‘‘wisdom 
from above” see Schoettgen; illustrations: 

1. Sonar, VYaleut Rubeni f. 19: “The wisdom 
from above was in Adam more than in the su- 
preme angels: and he knew all things.”’ 

2. Sohar Chadath, f. 85: ‘The angels were 
sent from above and taught him (Hnoch) the 
wisdom that is from above.”—Ibid. f. 42, 4. ‘Solo- 
mon came, and he was perfect in all things, and 
strongly set forth the praises of the wisdom that 
is from above.” 

For particular texts consult the following, 
besides the above: 

v. 1. Be. Bu: 
and dangerous. 
1387. 

vy. 2. Barrow: Not to offend in word, an eyi- 
dence of a high pitch of virtue. Works 1. 

vv. 14-17. App. WHatTELY: Party-spirit. Bamp- 
ton Lecture 33. 

γ. 16. Sour: The nature, causes and conse- 
quences, of envy. Sermons, 5, 389. 

γ. 17. Lerauton: The nature and properties 
of heavenly wisdom. Works, 3, 86. —M.]. 


The priest’s office difficult 
Visitation Sermon. Works 1, 


VII. FIFTH ADMONITION, 


REFERENCE TO THE INFALLIBLE TOKEN OF AN UNSPIRITUAL (FANATICAL) MENTAL 
CONSTITUTION FOUNDED ON WORLDLY-MINDEDNESS, VIZ.: THE WARS AND 
FIGHTINGS IN THE JEWISH CHRISTIAN WORLD AND PARTICULARLY IN THE 
JEWISH WORLD BOTH INWARDLY AND OUTWARDLY.—THE CONSEQUENCE THERE- 
OF: FAILURE AND FRUSTRATION OF THEIR STRIVING, THEIR MURDEROUS 
ENVYING, THEIR WARRING AND EVEN OF THEIR PRAYING. 


Cuarter [V. 1-3. 


1. From whence come wars and' fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your 

2 lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and 

3 cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet? ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask’, and 
receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume 7 upon your lusts. 


Verse 1. 1 A. B. C. Cod Sin. and al. insert asecond πόθεν. 
Lange: Whence then [are] wars and whence fightings among you? Is it not hence: from your lusts, which 
[especially] wage war in your members. 
[Whence are . . ? Arethey not .. 
Verse 2. 2 Rec. and some minuscules read ὃὲ after ἔχετε. 
andal. kat οὐκ ἔχετε. 
Lange: Ye desire it and ye have it not, ye murder and ye strive and ye cannot obtain it; ye fight and ye 
make war, and ye get it not, because ye ask not. 
[Ye desire and ye have not: ye commit murder and ye envy, and are not able to obtain; ye fight and make 
war, and ye have not, because ye ask not.—M. 
Verse 3. 3 Notice the interchange of αἰτεῖτε and αἰτεῖσθε. 
into καταδαπ. 
Lange: ἐς ask and receive it not, because ye ask illy [desirable in your interest] that ye may waste it in 
your lusts. 
[Ye ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend ἐξ in your lusts.—M.] 


.] 
A. B.G. K. οὐκ ἔχετε; C. Cod. Sin. Vulg. Griesbach 


Cod. Sin. intensifies the last word of this sentence 


110 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


ANALYsIs:—See above in summary of con- 
tents. The Apostle comes now to worldly-mind- 
edness [i.¢. the lust of the world—M.] which 
lies at the bottom of the fanatical zeal of teaching 
and wrangling described in the preceding chap- 
ter. He began with the appearance of visionari- 
ness (ch, 1), passed on to party-spirit (ch. ii.), 
then portrayed fanatical striving in its outward 
aspect (ch. iii.) in order to come now to the in- 
ward disruptions and breaches among the read- 
ers of his Epistle and to worldly-mindedness, 
which is really the root from which they spring. 
By and by (ch. iv. 4 etc.) we shall meet it in the 
shape of selfishness and a bias to apostasy (ch. 
y.), as self-righteousness ripe unto judgment. 
The Apostle moreover passes more and more 
from the Jewish Christians to the Judaizing 
Christians and from these to the real Judaistic 
Jews themselves. This suggests the remark that 
James put this Epistle into the hands of the Jewish 
Christians in order that it might influence all Jews, 
as it were, aS ὃν missionary instruction to the con- 
verted over against the unconverted, and to the 
rightly-converted over against the badly-con- 
verted. Notice the rapid transition from the 
thought immediately preceding, viz.: that right- 
eousness can prosper only in peace, to the impres- 
sive question: πόθεν πόλεμοι, the answer to which 
is contained in a second question appealing 

Wiesinger) to the conscience of the readers 
truther). 

Ver. 1. Whence then are wars and 
whence fightings ?—Not only dogmatical dis- 
putes between the teachers (Schneckenburger), 
or civil contentions concerning ‘‘mewm” and 
“tuum” (de Wette). It is atrue picture of the 
hostile dissensions of the Jewish people. Phari- 
sees, Sadducees, Essenes, Alexandrians, Samari- 
tans—on this basis sprung up nothing but new 
dissensions; believing or Christian and unbe- 
lieving Jews. The former contained as yet in 
the germ the opposites of Nazarenes and Ebi- 
onites, of Essene-gnostic and Pharisaic-vulgar 
Ebionites, the latter the shocking discord which 
appeared in the Jewish war and during the siege 
of Jerusalem. The πόλεμοι were the basis: 
the condition of war [warlike attitude], the μάχαι, 
single quarrels and fightings, which certainly 
partook occasionally of the character of skirm- 
ishes and at a later period even of battles; this 
is denied by Laurentius: ‘non loquitur Apostolus 
de bellis et cxdibus, sed de mutuis dissidiis, litibus, 
Jurgus et contentionibus.” [Alford renders ‘‘ mili- 
tate.’ To act the soldier is the real meaning of 
στρατευομένων..---Μ.1. 

Is it not hence?—The explanation; for 
ἐντεῦθεν is not a separate question: from hence? 
(Michaelis). 

From your lusts.—dovai are more than 
ἐπιθυμίαι (Huther); they are desires actualized, 
a life of sensual indulgence (Luther: voluptuous- 
ness, Wolliiste). ‘These wage war chiefly in the 
members. The members need hardly be empha- 
sized as being the camp of the lusts (Wiesinger); 
nor is the idea that they war against the soul 
(Rom. vii. 28; 1 Pet. ii. 11; de Wette) the lead- 
ing idea. Theile, Schneckenburger and others 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


rightly apply the term to the war of the lusts 
among themselves. Huther thinks it denotes an 
inward warfare against our fellow-men, but 
ἡδοναί would hardly be the most suitable word to 
bring out that idea. We might however think of 
the members in a restricted and in a wider 
sense ; the members of individuals and the mem- 
bers of the people. From the individual Jew, 
whose lusts become inimically opposed in his 
members, the division and dissension between 
spiritual selfishness and vain worldly-mindedness 
are communicated to the members of the whole 
nation. Wiesinger thinks the fightings denote 
opposition of the ἐπιθυμεῖν and the οὐκ ἔχειν. The 
fruitless struggling however is only an appearance 
and a judgment of this fighting. It is described 
in four gradations: 1, desiring; 2, murdering 
and envying; 3, fighting and warring; 4, praying 
and not receiving. To the first corresponds not 
having, to the second not obtaining, to the third 
an increased not haying, to the fourth an in- 
creased not receiving. The first grade denotes 
Judaism full of chiliastic worldly-mindedness up 
to the time of the New Testament. The second 
grade describes particularly the attitude of the 
Jews towards the Christians. The third grade 
comprises the development of the Jewish war. 
The fourth is mainly the history of Judaism after 
the destruction of Jerusalem. Such a definite 
mapping out of periods was of course not in- 
tended by the Apostle, but it describes the pro- 
cess of the development of Judaism as unfolded 
by history. The common construction that the 
reference here is either to the desire of individuals 
or of entire churches, and the limitation of the 
object of that desire to worldly riches and glory 
are inadequate to the prophetical relation in 
which James stood to his people. [Alford cites 
a remarkable parallel from Plato, Phzdo. p. 66, ¢: 
kal yap πολέμους καὶ στάσεις καὶ μάχας οὐδὲν ἄλλο 
παρέχει ἢ τὸ σῶμα καὶ αἱ τοῦτου ἐπιθυμίαι.----Ν 1.1. 

Ver. 2. Ye desire it and ye have it not. 
—The indefinite object at all events is implied; 
in the most general sense the object of the chili- 
astico-judaistic longing for the world [ Welt- 
sehnsucht, t. e. longing for the dominion of the 
world—M.], in the utmost variety of form and 
colour, nominally the fruit of righteousness, ch. 
111. 18. The antithesis pregnantly expresses the 
fruitlessness of the struggle. Ye have not has of 
course also the sense: ye receive not (de Wette); 
but it declares at the same time that they receive 
not, because they have not, because they are 
empty (Luke xix. 26). [Desire is not possession ; 
there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. 
—M.]. 

ve murder and ye envy.—This strong ex- 
pression has induced commentators to submit 
various modifications of it arising from their 
supposition that the Apostle here addresses only 
Christians and refers as yet only to the internal 
dissensions among the members themselves. Ye 
kill your own soul (Oecumenius), ye envy (ac- 
cording to the conjectured reading ¢foveire, 
Erasmus, Calvin and many others), ye hate (ac- 
cording to the doctrine that hatred is murder in 
thought 1 Jno. iii. 15. Luther, Estius, Wiesin- 
ger, Huther) ye strive even to murder and death 
(Carpzoyv, Schneckenburger), Winer rightly ad- 
vocates the literal sense of the term. That ζηλοῦτε 


CHAP. IV. 1-3. 


is not mentioned first proves nothing: for the 
two terms are not intended to a stronger and a 
weaker degree of conduct, but the negative and 
positive sides of their conduct. They committed 
murder because they thought they were zealous 
for the glory of God. With their striving they 
were hunting for the fleshly ideal of the glorify- 
ing of their religion. On that account also 
murder must come first. The twelve tribes, how- 
ever, who had already killed the Lord Himself 
and Stephen, who were in part responsible for 
the death of the Baptist and James the son of 
Zebedee, who had already shown the disposition 
to kill Paul, and who soon after did kill the au- 
thor of the Epistle himself, had to submit to this 
address; the Christians among them were at 
least sympathizing with these national offences. 
But their acts of murder and strife were wholly 
in vain, as were afterwards the acts of the inqui- 
sition, the hierarchical judicial murders and re- 
ligious wars of the zeal of the middle ages from 
. the Crusade against the Albigenses to the Thirty 
years’ War. Ye do not attain your terrible, 
hypocritical end, the Babel of conscience-mon- 
archy in the pseudo-glory of Zion. 


Ye fight and ye make war.—These words 
are not merely explanatory of πόλεμοι v. 1 (Hu- 
ther), for the primary reference is no longer to 
the quarrels among the Jews themselves. Their 
individual words become at last open fighting, 
and this leads to open warfare. Hence οὐκ ἔχετε 
is repeated here, and, as we read with Griesbach 
and Lachmann, with καὶ preceding it, ‘‘and yet 
ye have not, ze. ye get it not.” We join this 
with what goes before in order to constitute the 
third antithesis, not with what follows (Huther) 
to introduce the specification of the cause of all 
their disappointments.—Not till then follows the 
reason, not only of the frustration of their war- 
ring, but also of their murderous striving and 
desiring. All lacks the true life of prayer, which 
purifies, hallows and adjusts our efforts to the 
Divine disposition of affairs. But the probable 
protestation of the Judaists: ‘“‘we pray much,”’ 
prompts the Apostle to add an ironical self-cor- 
rection which brings out the fourth and most 
terrible antithesis. Their asking (αἰτεῖν) is evil 
praying (αἰτεῖσθαι. The Apostle having intro- 
duced an interchange of Active and Middle—see 
Winer, p. 297: Matthia 11. p. 1097._-he may 
here either take the Active as denoting importu- 
nate asking or the Middle as denoting egotistical 
praying for oneself. The latter is probably in- 
tended.), and for the reason that they pray for 
the help of Jehovah for a fulness of prosperity 
which they intend to squander in the lusts of 
their worldly mind. We have here to remind 
the reader of the visionary expectations of the 
Jews during the destruction of Jerusalem, of 
their gloomy lamentations in the post-christian 
synagogue (how they make God Himself weep 
over the unhappiness of His people) and of their 
vain, worldly striving and their description of 
the most sensual carousals in the future Kingdom 
of God. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. It is indeed a sad contrast if we oppose the 
name of Christ as that of the Prince of Peace 


111 


(Is. ix. 6) to the wretched quarrels and disputes 
of those who call themselves Christians and yet 
not uncommonly carry on such quarrels in His 
name. The question of James ‘‘Whence are 
wars and whence fightings among you?” may be 
addressed with equal pertinence to the countless 
sects and parties in just as many Christian com- 
munities in every age of the Church’s history. 
The cause is really still the same now which it 
was in the Apostolic age, viz.: the carnal mind 
which exhibits the selfishness of the natural man, 
after he has been baptized. The Church of 
Christ, which ought to be a Zion of peace, has in 
consequence become a Babel of confusion. But 
the serpent-seed of discord bears even now the 
same unhappy fruit which it did then. The 
sword which the loveless man turns against his 
brother, wounds his own hands, and in propor- 
tion as men covet what is their neighbour’s, they 
themselves grow poorer in true peace. 

2. There is no greater enemy of the true spirit 
of prayer than the spirit of quarrelsomeness and 
contention, cf. 1 Pet. iii. 7. It is impossible to 
find faith where love is wanting; how then can 
the unbelieving prayer of an ἀνὴρ dipuyoc (ef. ch. 
i. 6-8) obtain any thing at the Lord’s hand? 
Many a complaint of prayers not answered would 
surely cease, if men did not confine themselves 
to hearing their hearts only concerning the dis- 
appointment they have experienced, but would 
also examine their consciences concerning hidden 
guilt, which renders the hearing of prayer on 
the part of God morally impossible. Cf. Is. i. 
11-15. 

3. Prayer in order to be well-pleasing to God 
must ever go hand-in-hand with a God-conse- 
crated life. There is no greater horror in the 
sight of God than prayer which irreconcilably 
contradicts the inward and outward life. Cf. 
ΒΊΟΥ Xxvul,.0; Ps: xxxiv, 16, 17, 

4. The Christian is permitted to pray also for 
outward things, provided it be done in the spirit 
of absolute submission and resignation to the 
Divine Will, to the glory of His name and in the 
name of Christ. The rule Matth. vi. 33, applies 
also here. If this mind is wanting, prayer will 
not be followed by peace filling the heart, and 
this very want of true peace consequent upon 
prayer is an intimation that we need not expect 
the fulfilment of the desire uttered by us in 
prayer. Cf. Conférences sur la pritre, par J. Mar- 
tin, Paris, 1849, p. 111 ete. 

5. Prayer is evil first respect of the object, if 
we pray for some vain, unprofitable or foolish 
thing; secondly in consideration of the disposi- 
tion, if we pray in a vain, covetous and boister- 
ous spirit, that is without submission and filial 
trust, without leaving every thing at the disposal 
of God. Heubner. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The disputes and quarrels in the Christian 
Church—a great proof how little the wisdom 
which is from above is understood and practised, 
ch. 111. 16.—Every sensual and selfish lust which 
is not killed in the heart of the Christian, sooner 
or later must work disastrously to the detriment 
of fraternal communion.—Disappointed hopes 
should not fill us with bitterness and hatred 


112 
> 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


LL ΛΊἴ,Ῥ.ΦεΕοΨι- -ο--ς---.----.. “..»..ο..--ς-. 


against one another, but rather prompt us to 
humility and believing, confiding prayer.—It is 
not sufficient to pray only, all depends upon the 
manner how we pray and in what spirit.—God 
not a God of disorder, but a God of peace in all 
churches of the saints, cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 338.—The 
history of prayers that have not been heard. 
Examples: Deut. iii. 26; Jno. xi. 3-6; 2 Cor. 
xii. 8, 9 etc.—Prayer the true thermometer of 
the spiritual life.—He who prays illy need not 
expect more than he who prays not at all.— 
What our Lord said to Salome applies to many a 
praying man, Matth. xx. 22.—In prayer we 
must not think first and foremost of ourselves, 
but chiefly of the glory of God and the welfare 
of our neighbour.—A Christian prays not that 
he may bend the will of God according to his will, 
but in order that he may shape his will accord- 
ing to God’s.—No prayer without work, no work 
without prayer.— 


By caring and by fretting, 
By agony and fear, 

There is of God no getting, 
But prayer He will hear. 


Mit Sorgen und mit Graimen 
Und mit selbsteigner Pein, 
Liisst Gott sich gar nichts nehmen, 
Es muss erbeten sein. οἵ. Ps. exxvii. 1, 2. 


SrarKE:—Even with believers Satan attempts 
to bring about all manner of evil. He sows tares 
among the wheat, Matth. xiii. 25. 

Lanai, Op.:—The wars of the.world are no- 
thing but outbreaks of the evil heart, in which 
the evil lusts fight against God, against man and 
also among themselves, Ps. cxl. 3. 

Cramer:—Many a man rakes and scrapes and 
strives to get everything for his own use to no pur- 
pose, and labours tooth and nail but only hinders 
himself therewith. 

QursneL:—It is a great mercy of God not to 
hear men if they offer unjust prayers, Ps. Ixvi. 
18. 

Srier:—It is natural that the heathen, before 
Christ teaches them peace, break the battle-bow 
(Zech. ix. 10) and live fighting and warring with 
one another; but where Christendom knows and 
confesses the name of God, peace ought surely to 
bethere. Tobe sure, this so-called Christendom 
upon earth, inclosing (not contrary to the Divine 
purpose) as a net many nations, is far from being 
the Church of Saints, the Body of the Lord, ani- 
mated and occupied by His Spirit; hence to this 
day bloody wars are waged even between Chris- 
tian nations, and it cannot be otherwise because 
of righteousness against unrighteousness; the 
vigorous conduct of such wars is the Christian 
duty of rulers and ruled (kings and subjects) in 
the right place to which the sword put by God 
into hands [of lawful authority—M.] belongs. 
Moreover the good fight of faith must go on 
among Christian nations, states and churches, 
the sword of the spirit must be drawn against 
whatever is unchristian and ungodly, just as 
every holy man must fight for peace with the 
devil and with the world. But James makes no 
reference whatever to this good fight; he doubt- 
less includes pure zeal for the truth in love, direc- 
ted against all unrighteousness and whatever 


belong thereto in word or deed, in the peace in 
which the fruit of righteousness. should be sown 
(ch. iii. 18). But for all, enough remains for 
this cutting question: ‘‘ Whence are wars and 
whence are fightings among you, quarrelling 
and discord in word and deed among brethren 
and members of the Church of God, evil wars on 
a small scale like those without among the 
nations ?” 

Jakogpr1:—Do not even desire that which can- 
not benefit thee in things pertaining to God, and 
whatever thou dost desire, desire it only in as far 
as it furthers thy eternal salvation. But if thou 
prayest only in order to have and to enjoy, if 
thou openest communication with God only in 
order to receive or as it were to extort from 
Him worldly gifts, thou dost indeed draw nigh 
to Him with thy mouth and serve Him with thy 
lips, but thy heart is far from Him. 

NEANDER:—James like Paul here presupposes 
an inward conflict in man, the conflict between 
flesh and spirit. As Paul calls the powers of evil 
the law in the members, because the body is the 
outward manifestation of man and because the 
dominion of sinful desires exhibits itself on and 
in the body, so James speaks of the lusts that war 
in the members. 

ViepEBANDT :—The real trouble-states (Stdren- 
friede—disturbers of peace) in the world are 
seated deep in the hearts of men—the worldly. 
lusts.—Peace among men is the consequence of 
peace in men.—Who carries his point among-men 
by quarrelling, is always the loser no matter 
how much he may gain besides, for he loses with 
God.—There is relatively little praying in the 
world and besides, much of that little is evil 
praying.—Most men desire the gifts of God, not 
God Himself.—Envy seeks quarrel and quarrel 
brings woe.—We find often many obstacles in 
the way by our desires. Why? Because self- 
will and pride present obstacles to Divine help. 

Lisco:—The sinful lusts.—The dissensions of 
worldly life—The nature and consequence of 
lusts. 

PorusszKy:—The deepest root of all strife. 

y. 1. Harmony ought to reign in the members 
(ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν. The word μέλος signifies 1. a 
limb, a member; 2. a song and then the music to 
which a song is set, an air, a tune, a melody. 
ἐν μέλει, in tune, harmoniously. The Greek word 
μέλος would suggest the double idea of member 
and harmony to a Greek ear and I cannot but 
consider the selection of the word to have con- 
templated such an allusion), but now they ex- 
hibit strife and discord, the confusion of the 
camp and the violence of an armed soldiery. 
The lusts act the part of soldiers (στρατευομένωνῚ, 
they are not only encamped within us and forag- 
ing (Alford), but they are acting the part of 
soldiers, engaging in all the offices of military 
service.—M. ]. 

y. 2. dovebere. This was especially true of 
those bands of λῃσταὶ, sicarii, robbers and assas- 
sins, who, under the name of zealots, infested 
Jewish society at this time, and at last made the 
Temple itself a den of assassins. See Matth. 
xxi. 18. Evidences of the blood-thirsty spirit of 
rage, which now like a fiend possessed the heart 
of large numbers of the people, may be seen in 
the murderous plots and violent and frequent 


CHAP. IV. 4-17. ; 113 


outbreaks at this period, mentioned in Josephus | the multitude assembled from all parts of the 
(see below), and in the Gospel and Acts, such as| Jewish dispersions at the Passover, ‘Crucify 
that of Barabbas (Matth. xxvii. 16; Jno. xviii. | Him” (Matth. xv. 18, 14). Wordsworth.—M. ]. 
40), and of Judas of Galilee, and Theudas (Acts [Wuirsy cites the following passages from 
v. 36), and the Egyptian (Acts xxi. 38), and the | Josephus. Bell. Jud. IV. 10; II. 1; Antig. 
conspiracy against St. Paul (Acts xxiil. 12-14). | XVIII. 1; Bell. Jud. 11. 28; VI. 31; I. 705.— 


There may also be a reference here to the cry of | M.]. 


VIII. SIXTH ADMONITION. 


EXHORTATION TO REPENTANCE ADDRESSED TO THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS AND THE 
JEWS IN REFERENCE TO THEIR BEING ON THE WAY TO APOSTASY. THEY ARE 
ADDRESSED AS (RELIGIOUS) ADULTERERS AND ADULTERESSES, AS APOSTATES. 
THEIR FRIENDSHIP OF THE WORLD, WHICH IS THE CAUSE OF THEIR IMPEND- 
ING APOSTASY, THEY WERE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AS ENMITY OF GOD, TO REPENT 
OF IT AND TO RETURN FROM THEIR WORLDLY RUNNING AND WANDERING TO 
THE QUIETNESS OF A CONDUCT MARKED BY HUMILITY AND RESIGNATION TO 
THE DIVINE WILL. 


CuHapTer IV. 4-17. 


4 Ye adulterers' and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world? is 
enmity with God* whosoever‘ therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy® of 
5 God, Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us 
6 lusteth toenvy? But he giveth more grace, Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the 
7 proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. 
8 Resist’ the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw 
nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double- 
9 minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and® weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, 
10 and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the® Lord, and he shall 
11 lift you up. Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his 
brother, and” judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgcth the law: 
12 but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one 
lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou” that judgest another 718 
13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or“ to morrow we will go’ into such a city, and 
14 continue there” a year,® and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not 
what” shall be on the morrow. For what 7s your life??? It 155] even a vapour, that 
15 appeareth for a little time, and” then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If 
16 the Lord will, we shall live, and'do this, or that. But now ye-rejoice® in your 
17 boastings: all’ such rejoicing is evil. Therefore to him that knoweth to do” good, 
and doeth τὲ not, to him it is sin. 

Verse 4, 1 A.B. Sin. etc. Wulg., Bede, Lachmann, Tischendorf and other translations read only μοιχαλέδες. 
μοιχοί preceding it in G. K. etc. originated probably in the 0. T. symbolical sense having been 
abandoned and the literal sense adopted. 

2 Cod. Sin. inserts τούτου after κόσμον. 
3 Cod. Sin. reads ἔστι τῷ θεῷ for τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν of Rec. and al. 
[2 B. Cod. Sin. read ἐὰν for av.—M.] 
[8 Cod. Sin. has ἐχθρὰ for éx@pds.—M.] 
Lange: Ye [adulterers and] adulteresses know ye not that the friendship of the world is the enmity of 
God? Whosoever therefore willeth to be a friend of the world, standeth up as an enemy of God. 
[Ye adulteresses....is enmity of God?....shall be minded (Alford) to be a friend of the world, is 


_. constituted an enemy of God.—M.] 
Verse 5 §& A.B. Sin. Lachmann, Wiesinger read κατῴκισεν for κατῴκησεν 6. K. etc. 


Lange: Or do ye suppose... . The spirit that made His abode in us, as opposed to envy, longeth upward? 
[Or do ye fancy 7 . . The spirit that He planted in us, jealously desireth? (So de Wette, and after him 
Alford).—M. 


Verse 6. Lange: Still greater however [than is the longing], He giveth grace: wherefore it [the Scripture] saith... 
[But He ἔτους haan grace: wherefore He saith, God is opposed to the proud but giveth grace to the 
humble —M. 
Verse 7. 7 A.B. Sin. Vulg. etc. insert ὃ ἐ after the verb. δέ is omitted probably in order to give to the sentence a 
more independent form. 
Lange: Subject yourselves.... Butresist.... 
[Submit yourselves .... But resist the devil and he shall flee from you.—M.] 


114 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


Verse 8. 
minded. 


Lange: .. 


Lange: .... Cleanse the hands, ye sinners, and consecrate [make chaste unto God] the hearts, ye double- 


.. . before the Lord, and He will exalt you. 


[Be humbled, therefore, before .... and He shall exalt you.—M.] 
Verse 11, 1° A. B. K. Sin. etc. Tischendorf read 7 κρίνων for καὶ [Rec. etc.—M.] 
Lange: Do not calumniate [decry] one another, brethren. He that calumniateth or judgeth his brother, 
calumniateth the law and judgeth the law. 
[Do not speak against one another, brethren; he that speaketh against a brother or judgeth his brother, 


speaketh against .... M.] 


Verse 12. Uxat κριτής omitted by Rec. [with K. L. etc.—M.], is inserted in A. B., many minuscules, almost all the 


versions, Tischend. Lachm. also Cod. Sin. 
Vulg. Syr. Copt. al. insert δὲ after σύ, areading by all means to 


[7 A. B. K. L. many minusc. Cod. Sin. 


be retained on account of the strong emphasis “ But thou (almost contemptuous), who art thou ?”—M.] 

13 A.B. Cod. Sin. and many minuscules fix the readings 6 κρίνων and τὸν πλησίον against 
those of Rec. ὃς κρίνεις, and τὸν ἕτερον. 

[K. adds (see Ps. xxxvi. 23) ὅτι οὐκ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν θεῷ TA διαβήματα ἀνθρώπον 


κατευθύνεται--Μ.,Ρ7 


Lange: One is the Lawgiver and Judge, He, whois able...... But who art thou, thou that judgest [art 
judging] thy neighbour? [.... But thou. who art thou that judgest thy neighbour ?7— M. } 
Verse 13, 14 A. G.I. etc. Tischendorf |Cod. Sin. Alford.—M.] read σήμερον καὶ αὔριον, whichis also more 
authentic and important than 7 αὔριον. 
15 Lachmann and Tischendorf following B. etc., several miuusc. Vulg:, read the Future for the Subjuntive of 


Rec. In point of matter more suitable. 
Sin.—M.] 


A. has first two Subjunctives then two Indicates. [So Cod. 


fir A.B. Alford ἐμπορευσόμεθα καὶ κερδήσομεν. K.L. Subjunctive—M.] 


17 A. omits ἐκ «t.—M.] 


18 B. and Lachmann omit €va, but the omission is not decisive. 
Lange: Well then, ye that say: to-day and to-morrow we will journey to such and such a city, and will 
work there one year, and do business and make gain. 
[Go to now... . to-day and to-morrow we will set forth to this city and will spend there one year and 
will traffic [de Wette, Van Ess, Allioli etc. Alford] and get gain.—M.] 
Verse 14. 19 The Plural τὰ (A. Lachmann) is in every case more telling than τὸ (G. I.) Tischendorf. 
20 Lachmann, following A. Vulg. etc. omits yap after ἀτμίς, which makes the expression more difficult, 
but also more lively. [But A. Cod. Sin. Vulg. Copt. omit not only yap but ἀτμὶς yap .—M.] 


21 ἐστε is fixed by A. B.I. etc. 


22,A.B.etc.read καὶ for dé (Rec. Vulg. Mth. Bede put καὶ before ἔπειτα" 


Cod. Sin. agrees with 


A. ἔπειτα καὶ is accordingly the most authentic reading.—M. ] 
Lange: Yes ye that know not [understand not] what will be to-morrow [the great tempests of judgment]. 


For what [οὐ what kind] is your life? 
then vanisheth [again]. 


A vapour, forsooth, ye are, which appeareth for a little while, and 


[Whereas ye know not the things of to-morrow: for of what sort (Alford) is your life? For ye are a vapour 
which appeareth for a little while, then vanishing as it came.—M. | 


Verse 15. *3[B. reads θέλῃ .—M.]| 


24 A.B. Cod. Sin. read ζήσομεν and ποιήσομεν. 


have the Subjunctive. —M.] 


Lange: Instead of that you ought to say.. 


So Lachmann, Tischendorf [and Alford. K. L. al. 


[Instead of which ye .... we shall both live and do this or that.—M.] 
Verse 16. fos Cod. Sin. has κατακαυχᾶσθε for kavxagde.—M.] 


26 Cod. Sin. has ἅπασα for raca—M.] 


Lange: But now ye boast yourselves in your [vain] illusions, all boasting of such kind is evil. 
[But now ye glory in your vain-boastings : all such glorying is wicked.—M.] 


Verse 17.[27 (A.) reads ποιῆσαι for rovetv.—M.] 


Lange: To him now who knoweth ...., to him it will turn to sin. 
[So that to him who...., to him it is sin —M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND ORITICAL. 


Anatysis:—Reproach of the impending apos- 
tasy, v. 4.—Exhortation to a better and higher 
aim, vv. 5, 6.—The characteristics of their con- 
version to God on theocratic fundamental ideas 
(the new allegiance of the people of God, their 
purification, penitential mourning, and humilia- 
tion according to their situation) vy. 7-10.—Ren- 
ovation of their conduct towards the brethren, 
vy. 11, 12.—Dissuasion from their restless, gain- 
seeking and self-willed wandering through the 
world in consideration of the approaching storm of 
judgment vv. 13-15.—Reproof of their false secu- 
rity and forewarning of their conscience. vv.16,17. 

Reproach of the impending apostasy. 

Ver. 4. Ye adulteresses, know ye not,— 
The fact, that the majority of commentators are 
in favour of the Text. Rec., the authorities to 


sequently read; ἐγ adulterers and adulter- 
esses,” is rightly accounted for by Huther, who 
says that it arises from their taking the term in 
a literal sense, ‘‘which is expressly done by Au- 
gusti, Lachmann and Winer.” But we can 
hardly conceive any thing more extravagant 
than to suppose that James would brand all 
Jewish Christians as literal adulterers and adul- 
teresses. It is however in perfect keeping with 
the symbolical language of the Old Testament 
that James here describes the Judaistic bias to 
apostasy from the living God of revelation, Ps. 
Ixxili. 27; Is. lvii. 8; Ez. xxiii. 27; Hosea; 
Matth. xii. 89; xvi. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 2; Rev. ii. 22. 
The wonder is that this passage has not led 
commentators to learn the symbolical character 
of the whole Epistle, and more particularly the 
symbolical character of the rich in ch. ii and ch. 
v. The only suprising part of this exposition 
is the occurrence of the feminine adulteresses, a 


the contrary notwithstanding, and that they con- | term which Theile considers to be not altogether 


CHAP. IV. 4-17. 


115 


fitting, which Wiesinger calls singular as applied 
to individuals, while Huther remarks that the 
term should be referred to Churches. Besides it 
is noteworthy that symbolical adultery accord- 
ing to the usage of the Old Testament and accord- 
ing to the figure itself is feminine inasmuch as it 
describes the apostasy of the Lord’s bride. To 
this must be added that the Apostle is not ad- 
dressing now the Jewish Christian Churches in 
particular, but Judaism in general, such as, in 
the preceding section, he saw it sundered into 
the most diverse factions. The Plural probably 
denotes this disruption, not only the several 
synagogues but also the several factions. 

Know ye not.—From your theocratical 
calling to the covenant with God as opposed to 
the ungodly world, and from your teaching and 
knowledge. 

That the friendship of the world.—That 
is befriending and alliance with an ungodly 
world (ch. i. 27; cf. 1 Jno. ii. 15), not merely 
inclination to wordly goods (Theile and al.), nor 
worldly desires (Laurentius), nor both of these 
together (de Wette). The world is personified 
in this antithesis; it is idolatry depicted as a 
whole, the vanity of mankind deifying itself and 
deified (7. e., ungodliness showing itself in its 
propensity for the impersonal) connected with 
the whole visible world frustrated by it. The 
Judaistic friendship for the world, which must 
be taken chiefly in an active sense, consisted 
just in the chiliastic desire of enjoying a worldly 
glory which at the best was only dyed hierarchi- 
cally pious (in sensual enjoyment, honour and 
dominion cf. Matth. iv.). It is to be noticed 
that this vain worldliness concealed itself under 
the garb of a pious fleeing from the world (the 
hatred of heathenism, even of Gentile-christian, 
pretended uncleanness). 

Is enmity of God.—Here also the predomi- 
nant active sense must be held fast ‘‘on which 
account the majority of commentators interpret 
it straightway by ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν (Rom. vili. 7)” 
Huther. Lachmann following the znimica of the 
Vulgate, has even adopted the reading ἐχθρὰ 

which, however, is also the reading of the Cod. 
Sin.—M.], which greatly weakens the weight of 
the idea. 

Whoever therefore shall be minded to 
be a friend of the world.—Inference drawn 
from what precedes. Ὃς βουληθῇ. The difficulty 
which has been found in this expression, because 
it seems to involve an intentional choice of evil, 
is set aside if we distinguish between a formal 
and a material intention. The Apostle certainly 
could not suppose his readers to have the formal 
intention of surrendering to the world. But it 
was very different with the material intention 
of taking a direction in worldliness which in- 
volved the friendship of the world. But this was 
precisely the case with the rebellious chiliasm 
of the Jews, even with the worldly-mindedness 
of Judaistic Christians. And in this sense the 
term certainly lays stress both on the conscious 
intention (Baumgarten) and on the antithesis of 
their doing which had already become a reality. 
Whosoever is devoted to the world, although as 
yet only in his heart (not, as Wiesinger, who for 
the present is only inclined that way), has stood 
up as the enemy of God, because our attitude to 


God is determined by the attitude of our heart. 
The Lord looketh at the heart. Huther’s laying 
stress on the construction that the world must 
be taken here as an aggregate of persons, be- 
cause φιλία then consists in a reciprocity, seems 
to be an expedient beside the mark. That the 
world is represented as an aggregate of persons 
stands to reason; but the question is whether 
the persons are to be honoured as persons or 
dishonoured as impersonal things as a means of 
selfishness. However he rightly observes that 
καθίσταται here as in ch. 111. 6, must not be weak- 
ened, but denotes ‘‘he takes the attitude.”” We 
render ‘‘he stands up,” or ‘“‘appears,’’ because 
this brings out the as yet inward character of 
his attitude. [On the whole ‘is constituted” 
seems to be the best rendering of the term in 
English; it does not touch the inward or the 
outward attitude in particular but involves 
either and this seems really to be the Apostle’s 
meaning. It is immaterial whether the man’s 
purpose be latent, uttered in words or manifest 
in deeds, in any case he is constituted an ene- 
my of God.—M. ]. 

Exhortation to a better and higher aim, vv. 5, 6. 

Ver. 5. Or do ye fancy that the Scrip- 
ture saith in vain.—This passage is one of the 
most difficult in the New Testament; we must 
therefore refer the reader to the Commentaries for 
a full discussion of the question (see Schnecken- 
burger, Beitrdge, p. 193: Huther, Wiesinger, etc. ). 
We have first to set aside the really desperate 
expositions which aim at improving the text (see 
Huther’s note p. 166) and then the connection 
of πρὸς φθόνον with what goes before. The 
Scripture saith against envy (du Mont), or: 
Think ye that the Scripture speaks in vain and 
enviously (πρὸς φθόνον adverbially, Gebser)? But 
in that case πρὸς φθόνον ought to precede λέγει. 
We consider the exposition of Beza, Grotius and 
al.: “The spirit of man has a natural bias to 
envy” as underrated by Huther. In that case 
the words have to be connected with what the 
Scripture says of the envy of Cain, and similar 
passages. But that exposition is inadmissible, 
for 1. The spirit is described as having taken up 
its abode in us and consequently distinguished 
from ourselves, 2. μείζονα x. τ. A. would be with- 
out a subject. The first difficulty, indeed, would 
be obviated if we could take πνεῦμα in the sense 
of πνεῦμα φθόνου according to Wisd. 2, 24.— 
διάβολος. Huther undervalues the similar ex- 
position of Semler ad. y. 7, saying, ‘because 
of its strangeness we make room for Semler’s 
note on this passage: Jacobus, Paulus, Petrus, 
Judas uno quasi ore id confirmant, opus esse, ut Ro- 
manis et sic (!) Deo se subjiciant” -and further on: 
“τῷ διαβόλῳ, quiper πνεῦμα φθόνου vos suscitat adver- 
sus magistratum romanum.” But the want of a sub- 
ject to μείζονα deters us from adopting this expo- 
sition somewhat as follows: even the Holy Scrip- 
ture testifies that there has come among us a spirit 
which excites that envy which is the specific at- 
tribute of that love of the world which causes 
the wars and fightings described above (see the 
book of Jonah). Less tenable is the exposition 
which makes the spirit to denote the Divine 
Spirit but takes the respective words interroga- 
tively, as follows, ‘‘nwm ad invidiam proclivis est 
Spiritus Sanctus? minime” (so Gabler and simi- 


116 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


larly Bede, Calvin and al.). Where the citation 
from Holy Writ introduces the subject, we hardly 
expect an interrogative sentence. The interpre- 
tation of de Wette, Huther and al. is at present 
urged more than any other. Huther: “Or do 
ye think that the Scripture speaks in vain? 
(No) the Spirit, that has taken His abode in us, 
enviously desires us, but gives (so much the) 
more grace; therefore He saith,” etc.—The pa- 
rentheses abundantly show how very forced is 
this interpretation, which is also advocated by 
Schneckenburger and al, Our objections to it 
are as follows: 1. The anthropomorphism ‘‘that 
the Spirit of God loves us even unto envy” is too 
strong. The reference to ζῆλος, the jealousy of 
God in the conjugal relation He sustains to His 
people, is allowable but ζῆλος is not φθόνος, which is 
uniformly mentioned in Holy Scripture as asource 
of evil. To this must be added 2. The postu- 
lated supplements and the defective antithesis 
“but He gives so much the more grace,” ete. 
But this mode of expression at first sight grows 
even more dark, if we understand with Wies- 
inger τὸ πνεῦμα as the object of the human 
spirit, supplying ὁ θεός as the subject: Divine 
Love enviously desires the object of its Love, 
that is, the human spirit from God (7. 6., aus 
Gott—emanating from God—M.], which turns 
either to God or to the world. If we bear in 
mind that θεός had been named immediately be- 
fore, the envious loving remains in the first 
place, and then appears as a loving which is 
only directed to the Spirit. This applies also to 
the similar interpretation of Theile, who sup- 
plies however ἡ γραφή instead of ὁ θεός. How- 
ever, even if we wished to retain the interpreta- 
tion of Wiesinger or Huther we should be 
obliged to go back to the passage Ex. xx. 5. The 
jealousy of God would be expressed in His vis- 
iting the iniquity of idolatry (—adultery) on 
the children of the third and fourth generation, 
and the antithesis ‘‘but showing mercy unto 
thousands, etc.,’’ would be adequately expressed 
in μείζονα δὲ δίδωσι χάριν. With reference to the 
citation in question, we have the following con- 
jectures which we give in brief from Huther: 
Gen. vi. 8, 5 (Grotius), Gen. viii. 21 (Erasmus, 
Beza, etc.), Numb. xi. 29 (Witsius), Deut. v. 9 
(Schneckenburger), Deut. xxxii. 21 (Heisen), 
Ps. exix. 20 (Clericus), Prov. xxi. 10 (Michae- 
lis), Song of Solomon viii. 6 (Coccejus), Wisdom 
of Sol. vi. 12 (Wettstein). Others again have 
guessed at passages from the New Testament, at 
some lost passage in the prophets, at a passage 
in the Apocryphal book called the Testament of 
the twelve Patriarchs or at a collective statement 
of different passages of Holy Scripture. » Huther 
denies the fact of a citation altogether and be- 
lieves the reference to be to a statement of James 
and that ἡ γραφὴ λέγει adverts either to the idea 
immediately preceding or to the citation intro- 
duced with διὸ λέγει in v. 6: ὁ θεός, ete. After 
all the interpretations given, that of Luther 
(Gomarus, Bengel and al.) still continues to 
possess much weight, viz., ‘the spirit lusteth 
against hatred—invidia,” (cf. Gal. v. 17); in 
favour of which may be produced the following 
passages: Ps, xxxvii. 1, οἷοι; v. 34, etc.; Ps. 
xxiii. 8, ete. Huther can hardly dispute suc- 
cessfully that πρὸς φθόνον in point of language 


may be equivalent to κατὰ φθόνου and that 
ἐπιποθεῖν may be taken in the sense of ἐπιθυμεῖν. 
But we still want the subject for μείζονα δὲ κ. τ. 
A. and we are driven to recognize it in πνεῦμα 
itself. Then it is the Divine Spirit in believers 
on the one hand, mediating in them a longing 
going beyond the love of the world (Rom. viii. 
23-26), and on the other also a grace which is 
beyond all longing, praying and understanding 
(1 Cor. ii. 9; Eph. 111. 22). We therefore con- 
strue the passage with reference to Ps, xxxvii. 
1 and Ps. Ixxiii. 3 as follows: ‘“‘over against 
and opposed to envy (which is really at the bot- 
tom of your worldliness and is the very soul of 
your wars, fightings and insurrections) the 
Spirit who took abode among us, utters a higher 
longing (ἐπεποθεῖ emphatic), and-not in vain; for 
the self-same Spirit mediates also the grace 
which goes even beyond our longing in Him.” 
The Jews in consequence of the envy of their 
worldliness became unbelieving with respect to 
Christianity (Acts xiii. 45; ch. xxii. 22), and 
rebellious toward the Romans; but the spirit 
which lived and acted in the true theocrats from 
Abel to Asaph (Ps. lxxiii.) and from him and 
the prophets to the Christians, coming in contact 
with it [envy ?—M.] was longing beyond it and 
its objects for the immortal. And as envy shows 
itself in the proud whom God opposes, so that 
longing shows itself in the humble to whom He 
gives grace. We therefore give our sense of 
this passage by way of paraphrase. The friend- 
ship of the world of which envy is really the 
soul, and the friendship of God, of which the 
longing of the Spirit is really the soul are in- 
compatibles and inimically opposed to each 
other. This may be proved from Scripture. 
For as to our relation to God it says not without 
reason that the strong longing of the Divine 
Spirit, who took up His abode in us (who united 
with our spirit, is the spirit of prayer, of our 
yearning for heavenly riches; while as the Spirit 
of Divine consolation and peace He mediates for us 
a grace which is even greater than our longing), 
bids defiance to and is opposed to envy which is the 
truest form of the spirit of the world. But as to 
the relation of God to ourselves, the Scripture 
saith: God resists the haughty and proud who 
are at one with the spirit of envy, while He gives 
grace to the humble who are at one with the 
poor in spirit. On the meaning of mpéc=in re- 
lation or in proportion to, or against, in op- 
position to οἵ. the Lexica. The sentence, more 
clearly defined, would read thus: πρὸς τὸ ποθεῖν 
τοῦ φθόνου ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα.---- 8 Comparative 
‘‘greater (more) grace” must consequently not 
be referred to the antithesis: what the friend- 
ship of the world does give (Bede, Gebser and 
al.), or: ‘eo majorem, quo longius recesseris ab 
invidia” (Bengel), or according to an obscure 
thought: as compared with the case that the 
πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖν did not take place (Wies- 
inger, de Wette, Huther). 

[ Without reconsidering this bewildering conflict 
of opinions, the view which seems to harmonize 
best with the context and the line of James’ ar- 
gument, is to take πνεῦμα as the object, and un- 
derstanding the Holy Spirit, to supply ὁ Θεός as 
the subject and to render πρὸς φθόνον adverbially. 
‘The (Holy) Spirit that He (God) planted in us, 


CHAP. IV. 4-17. 


117 


jealously desireth [5]. The expression is 
highly figurative and alludes to the conjugal re- 
lation between God and the soul of believers. 
The Spirit of God implanted in us, jealously de- 
sireth us, jealously desires us to break entirely 
with the world and to be wholly consecrated and 
devoted to God. Any temporizing with the 
world would be spiritual adultery.—Then as to 
the citation from Scripture referred to we hold 
with many commentators that James gives the 
general sense of Scripture without specifying a 
particular passage. Alford takes the same view. 
—M.]. 

Wen. 6. This greater grace is the greater 
measure of the comforting and satisfying Spirit 
as related to the longing Spirit. διὸ λέγει, that 
is the same Scripture, not τὸ πνεῦμα. [But why 
not refer διὸ λέγει to τὸ πνεῦμα the Holy Spirit? 
He speaks in us and in the Holy Scriptures—M. ]. 
διὸ is very apposite: just as the Scripture speaks 
of our relation to God, so it speaks of God’s re- 
lation to us. The passage in question is Prov. 
iii. 84 LXX., which has however ὁ κύριος instead 
of ὁ Θεός. [The same variation occurs in 1 Pet. 
v.5.—M.]. ὝὙπερήφανοι (not exactly equivalent 
to the idea τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες in Rom, xii. 16) 
are the same as the rich in ch. y. 1 ete. or in the 
Sermon on the Mount, Luke vi. 24 ete. In like 
manner the ταπεινοί represent the poor, the 
lowly, the wretched in a symbolical sense, so 
much comforted in the Old Testament, or the 
poor in spirit, the suffering, the meek and the 
merciful of the Sermon on the Mount. 

The characteristics of conversion to God required 
of the readers of the Epistle, or theocratic fundamen- 
tal ideas.—The new allegiance of the people of God. 
Their approach, purification, penitential mourning 
and humiliation according to their situation. vv. 7-10. 

Ver. 7. Subject yourselves therefore to 
God.—Now follows a series of theocratic ideas 
in the process of the New Testament fulfilment or 
completion, which significantly reflect in consecu- 
tive order the several moments of Jewish con- 
version; a circumstance which seems to be not 
sufficiently noticed by Exegesis. Subject your- 
selves to God; become once more His real sub- 
jects, as the people of God, in opposition to your 
leaning to apostasy. This is the first and the 
whole, an exhortation not exclusively addressed 
to the decided ὑπερήφανοι. Calvin emphasizes 
the circumstance that the reference is not to 
obedience to God in general, but to swbmissio in 
particular. Semler indeed maintained that they 
were exhorted “ἐμέ Romanis se subjiciant, et sic 
Deo,” but it is rather the reverse; they were 
first to subject themselves to God and then in 
consequence of it, to the power appointed to rule 
them. Their submission to the rule of the living 
God was moreover to exhibit itself in their hum- 
bly getting reconciled to the new order of 
things, the change of Judaism into Christianity, 
the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christianity 
and the existing rule of pagan Rome. 

But resist the devil.—Not only because he 
is the enemy of God and the prince of this world, 
by the attractions of which they suffer themselves 
to be enticed, but especially because he is the 
demon of self-boasting and envy, who assumes 
the garb of an angel of light, and desires them 
by representing that his temptation to sedition 


isa call from God, ch. i. 13.—Being only half- 
decided and doubting make the tempter bold and 
strong, while resolute courage in God and resist- 
ance unmask him in his impotence; for real 
courage and real power come from God; the 
power of Satan is alying phantom-power (Matth. 
iv.). It is only in the self-temptation of man 
that the temptation of Satan can become efficient. 
[Huther quotes Hermas, Pastor, 2, 12.—*‘divaraz 
ὁ διάβολος παλαῖσαι, καταπαλαῖσαι δὲ ov δύναται, ἐὰν 
οὖν ἀντίστης αὐτόν, νικηθεὶς φεύξεται ἀπὸ σοῦ κατῃσ- 
χυμμένος.""---Μ.]. 

Draw nigh to God.—The allegiance of the 
people of God is followed by their drawing near 
to Him. {$$ or 5“) in relation to God isa 

ee τ πὶ ἰὴ 


specifically theocraticalidea. Ex. xx.21; xxiv. 2: 
Ley. xvi. 1; Ezek. xl. 46; cf. Is. xxix. 13; Heb. 
vii. 19; hence the expression Korban, that which 
is consecrated or offered to God. Here drawing 
near is used in the N. T. real sense—convert 
yourselves. The particular although not the ex- 
clusive reference to prayer. 


And He will draw nigh to you.—The an- 
tithesis ‘‘ Resist the devil and he shall flee from 
you”’ corresponds to the antithesis ‘‘ Draw nigh 
to God and He will draw nigh to you.” (See 2 
Chron. xv. 2; Is. lvii. 15; Zech. i. 3). 


Ver. 3. Cleanse the hands, ye sinners,— 
The first specifically theocratic act. The expres- 
sion refers to the Levitical purifications, the 
negative part of Levitical repentance, separate- 
ness from the world. The prophets did already 
apply this symbolical purification to ethical pu- 
rification or rather interpret it ethically accord- 
ing to its profound import. See Is. i. 15, 16; 
Ps, xviii. 21; xxiv. 4; ‘‘He that hath clean 
hands and a pure heart.” The hands are the 
organ and symbol of ethical actions. To cleanse 
the hands signifies therefore to repent (Pott), to 
become separate from evil works, especially 
from lovelessness and wrong. This summons 
does not begin the summons to conversion (Hu- 
ther), for it is already implied in the words 
‘Subject yourselves to God,” which branch out 
into two moments, the negative ‘‘to resist the 
deyil,”’ and the positive ‘‘to draw nigh to God.” 
This approach to God, in its turn, branches out into 
purification and sanctification in the narrow sense. 

Consecrate your hearts.—The real conse- 
cration of our life to God consists in the conse- 
cration of the heart, in its surrender to God (Ps 
11 19. 18:10. (Prova) χα 0 5 ΠΡ  αχα 599}. 1 
Pet. iii. 15 etc.). The words ‘‘ye sinners” re- 
late to the cleansing of the hands, the words 
“ye double-minded” to the consecration of the 
heart. The term dyvicate probably alludes more 
particularly to the unchastity of the heart, as 
the source of religious adultery. Wavering and 
unchastity are here alike, so are on the other 
hand simplicity or decision and chastity.—They 
are sinners in a particular sense according to 
theocratic ideas, as far as they are about to ex- 
communicate themselves by their evil actions 
(ch. ii. 3), to burden themselves with the ban of 
the real congregation of God (publicans and 
sinners=those who are liable to the discipline of 
the synagogue); but the reason lies in this 
double-mindedness, their wavering (ch. i. 7, 8), 
their mischievous halting between God and the 


118 


world, between Christianity and apostasy. Cal- 
vin’s noteis almost superfluous: ‘‘non duo hominum 
genera designat, sed eosdem vocat peccatores et du- 
plices animo.” It is evident from vv. 6 and 8 that 
this exhortation to their own self-activity pre- 
supposes the grace of God as the source of 
strength. 

Ver. 9. Feel miserable and mourn.— 
Hardly limited to the mourning which introduces 
and accompanies the repentance of individuals; 
the type is found in the Old Testament extraor- 
dinary acts of penitence which in situations of 
uncommon offences and peril were performed to 
complete the ordinary acts of penitence, viz. pu- 
rifications and consecrations or offerings, Ex. 
xxxiil. 4; Judg. ii. 4; Ch. xxi. 2; 1 Sam. vii. 6 
etc.—The verb ταλαιπωρεῖν (ἅπαξ dey. in N. T.; 
the adjective form in Rom. vii. 24; Rey. iii. 17; 
the noun Rom. 111. 16; Jas. v. 1), denotes pri- 
marily to go outwardly through hard work, to 
endure hardship or distress, then the inward 
sense of misery on account of outward or inward 
wretchedness. Grotius and Roman Catholic 
theologians apply it without reason to castiga- 
tions. Jewish fasting and other castigations as 
symbols of penitential sorrow are indeed the 
type, but Christian penitential sorrow must not 
be changed back into legal symbolism. 

Mourn and weep.—See Neh. viii. 9; Mark 
xvi. 10; Luke vi. 25; Rev. xviii. 15,19. The 
putting on of mourning-apparel or sitting in 
sackcloth and ashes (Grotius) can only be the 
type of the Gospel requirement of inward mourn- 
ing (2 Cor. vii. 10). 

Let your laughter be turned.—Is. lxv. 13; 
Luke vi. 25. ‘James passes from the outward 
manifestation (γέλως-πένθος) to the inward state 
(χαρά---κατήφεια). Huther.—xarydeca, casting 
down of the eyes, literally and figuratively. 
Hence shame and humiliation, ἅπαξ λεγ., Luke 
xviii. 18. 

Ver. 10. Humble yourselves before the 
Lord.—The fundamental idea of the leadings of 
the Old Testament and the O. T. fundamental 
rule of piety and of the promises attached to it; 
it has met its fulfilment in the humiliation and 
exaltation of Christ and must be realized in the 
life of betievers (Rom. vi. 4; Job v. 11; Ezek. 
xxi. 26; Matth. xxiii. 12; Luke xiv. 11; 1 Pet. 
vy. 6; ef. Sir. ii, 17). As this humbling must be 
realized inwardly in the bowing of repentance 
before God (ἐνώπιον κυρίου), and outwardly in 
the patient enduring of the humiliating state of 
servitude and lowliness (ὑπὸ τὴν χεῖρα τοῦ θεοῦ, i. 
Pet. v. 6) appointed by Him, so the exaltation 
also should begin with the inward consciousness 
of the exaltation, liberty and glory of the Divine 
Sonship [ἡ 6. the state of being the children of 
God in Christ—Gotteskindschaft; υἱοθεσία, adop- 
tion—M.] and come to its outward consummation 
in the future glory, of which we have however 
some antepast here on earth. κύριος does not 
exactly signify Christ (Grotius), nor θεός as op- 
posed to Christ (Huther and al.). James wants 
to see the living God of revelation recognized in 
Christ. 

Renovation of their conduct towards the brethren. 
vv. 11, 12. 

Ver. 11. Do not calumniate one another, 
brethren.—Huther thinks that this exhorta- 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


tion, couched in a milder form than the pre- 
ceding and exhibiting a contrast in the address, 
ἀδελφοί being opposed to μοιχαλίδες, ἁμαρτωλοί, 
δίψυχοι, intimates that James now addresses, at 
least primarily, another class of persons, namely 
those ‘‘who by the worldly ways of the former 
felt induced to do those things against which he 
exhorts them.” But Wiesinger takes a more 
correct view as the transition: ‘‘The connection 
is as follows: if they thus humble themselves 
before God, they must not deny humility in the 
judgment they pass on their brethren. He 
therefore exhorts them to put away imaginary 
superiority to others in judging them, which is 
really an arrogant usurping of the judicial func- 
tions of God. The end corresponds to the be- 
ginning. Worldly pride the source of strife, 
humble submission to G®d the end thereof.” He 
adds however ‘‘he refers particularly to the op- 
pressed.” But really there is no reason to see 
here already a distinct transition from one class 
to another. Slander and judging were the very 
soul of their fanatical doings in relation to their 
brethren. In ch. iii. 1 also he addresses the 
brethren, although the sequel contains the se- 
verest kind of reprimand. καταλαλεῖν found 
here and 1 Pet. ii. 12; iii. 16. It denotes not 
only slandering (backbiting, Luther) but also 
evil contradiction, retorting.— 

He that calumniateth or judgeth his 
brother.—The Participles καταλαλῶν and κρίνων 
are stronger than the indicative: he, whose cha- 
racteristic consists in that he calumniates his 
brother. Huther thinks that while καταλαλεῖν 
always includes xpivecv—=to condemn, the reverse 
holds not good. This would make the former 
the stronger expression, but we consider the 
latter to be so. κρίνειν passes from a loveless 
and therefore from a hateful judging of one’s 
neighbour to a similar condemnation of him. 
Wiesinger says indeed that ‘‘the context affords 
not the slightest occasion to think here of quar- 
rels among Jewish Christians and Gentile Chris- 
tians,”’ but the spirit of the whole Epistle con- 
strains us to think of it, although the word 
ἀλλήλων shows that the primary reference here 
is to the internal divisions of Judaism. James 
probably alludes more particularly to the expres- 
sions and accusations which the Jews as Juda- 
ists and unfree Jewish Christians were wont to 
bring against the believing and more believing 
Jews. This seems to follow from the sequel 
‘“‘He that calumniateth, ete., calumniateth the 
law.” Schneckenburger rightly observes that the 
epithet brother given to the slandered persons 
emphasizes the peculiarly reprehensible charac- 
ter of calumny. But the sequel shows that the 
Apostle, by the use of this word, still aims at 
something more. Νόμος designates here, as in 
ch. i. 25 and ii. 9, ete., the Old Testament law 
in its New Testament fulfilment. Hence the 
idea of Huther is right that slandering and con- 
demning one’s brother is really slandering and 
condemning the law itself, viewed as the law 
of the Christian life and more particularly as 
the law of love, for such conduct amounts to re- 
jecting it as an unjust law; but the Apostle’s 
idea seems to be more comprehensive, viz., the 
condemnation of one’s brother from the stand- 
point of fanatical motives is a condemnation of 


CHAP. IV. 4-17. 


119 


——————— a eee 


the essential νόμος according to its inmost evan- 
gelical import and especially as to its tendency 
of saving and not condemning. Thus the con- 
demnation of one’s brother in all cases is not 
only without the law and contrary to the law, but 
it falls also upon the law itself. This was per- 
fectly clear in the case where the Jews judged 
the Christians; they judged the whole revelation 
(Jno. v. 45, 46); but in the opposite case also, 2. 
e., that is where Christians judged the Jews, 
judgment was passed on the heart-point of the 
law, viz.: the promise of grace. De Wette, who 
sees in the respective expression only a figura- 
tive, pointed speech indicating the disregard of 
the law, dilutes the idea. Surely Grotius, Baum- 
garten, Hottinger are not altogether wrong (as 
Huther thinks) in understanding νόμος as the 
Christian doctrine and perceiving here the idea 
that whosoever burdens his neighbour with ar- 
bitrary commandments, pronounces upon the 
deficiency of the Christian doctrine and in so far 
sets himself up asits judge. For this is just the 
manner of those who condemn; occupying a 
false standpoint, in particular that of illiberal 
legalism, they set themselves up as judges over 
the word of revelation, which judges no man 
uncharitably and is unwilling that any man 
should be absolutely condemned and least of all 
he, who has taken his standpoint in that very 
word. 

But if thou judgest the law, 7. 6., if thou 
settest thyself up condemningly over it. 

Thou art not a doer of the law.—Al- 
though thou boastest, to be zealous and jealous 
of it to the highest degree. ; 

But a judge.—The question is does this 
mean 1, a judge who from another standpoint 
judges and condemns the law itself, that is a 
God-hostile adversary of the law, an out and out 
anomist [ἄνομος, without law, alawlessman.—M. ], 
which would require us to supply the Geni- 
tive νόμου after κριτής (so Neander, Wiesinger 
and al.), or 2, does κριτῆς denote absolutely the 
judge who administers the law in judging men? 
This interpretation is opposed by Huther to the 
former, with the remark that the former makes 
this sentence and the one preceding it tautologi- 
cal, that it dilutes the antithesis of doer and 
judge and that the sequel adverts not to a judg- 
ing of the law but toa judging of men. As to 
tautology, it does not belong to the first inter- 
pretation, because we have then the climax, not 
doers but condemners of the law. The antithe- 
sis ‘observer and despiser of the law”’ is surely 
much stronger than that of ‘‘doer and guardian 
of the law.” 
law” is substantiated with what goes before. 
But the relation is such that the anti-judge is also 
always pseudo-judge just as anti-Christ is also al- 
ways Pseudo- Christ. 

Ver. 12. One is the Lawgiver and 
Judge.—He is One, which is emphatic, not 
only as contrasted with all men, of whom this is 
not true, but also in the unity of the Lawgiver 
and the Judge (Morus), which does not suffer to 
rise a contradiction between the spirit of the 
law and the spirit of the judgment such as it 
ought to exist if the judging of the Judaists were 
authorized. Now His power to judge has de- 
veloped itself in the first place as the power to 


Lastly the idea ‘“‘condemner of the” 


| save or to render blessed and in the second as 
the power to destroy or to damn. The sequel 
therefore is not a further predicate: ‘He is 
able to save, etc.” (Luther), but states the cha- 
racteristic, ‘‘He, who is 80 16. This intimates 
at least that the Judge is the God of the Gospel, 
who saves or damns men according to their be- 
lief or unbelief, Mark xvi. 16.—He manifests 
Himself in fact as ‘this δυνάμενος and thus estab- 
lishes His exclusive prerogative to judge. Ben- 
gel: ‘‘NMostrum non est judicare, presertim cum 
exequi non possimus.”’ 

But who art thou.—ZJmpotent before that 
judicial majesty and power of God, moreover as 
a sinner guilty of the judgment and in want of 
grace (see Rom. xiv. 4). 

That judgest.—Really who makest judging 
thy business: ὁ κρίνων, with the Article to which 
Schneckenburger calls attention. But this word 
evidently serves to introduce the sequel, accord- 
ing to which a great judgment is impending on 
these judges. 

Dissuasion from their restless, gain-seeking and 
self-willed wandering through the world in considera- 
tion of the approaching storm of judgment. vv. 13- 
15. 

Ver. 13. Well then, ye that say.—Huther, 
who is supported by many predecessors (Oecu- 
menius, Bede, Semler, Pott, Hottinger and al.), 
thinks that James now addresses no longer 
members of the Christian Church, but the rich; 
viz., rich Jews, according to the forementioned 
explanation of the term rich. Gebser and al. 
contradict this view; Wiesinger holds that James 
addresses simply a particular class of his read- 
ers. But the Apostle’s address really avoids 
every definite outward classification. His Epis- 
tle is addressed to the twelve tribes by the 
hands of the Jewish Christian, 7. e., primarily to 
these with the intent that they should use the 
Epistle for missionary purposes among their 
brethren. But as James looks upon Judaism as 
a solidary* guilt and perverseness attaching to 
the whole people, although mostly to the unbe- 
lieving Jews, so all his exhortations and warn- 
ings are addressed through the Jewish Chris- 
tians to all Jews. Still so that the centre of 
gravity in his address is continually progressing 
from the Jewish Christians to the Jews. With 
respect to this section of the Epistle, while it 
still describes a gain-loving, trafficking Jewish 
wandering through the world, of which the Jew- 
ish Christians as well as the Jews might readily 
become guilty, at least to some extent, yet it is 
evidently the transition to the subsequent pro- 
phetical lamentation over the rich, ἃ. e., over the 
hardened part of the Jewish people, especially 
their leaders, and is consequently addressed 
more particulary to the Jews.—The interjection 
ἄγε νῦν (here and ch. y.; not found elsewhere in 
the New Testament), according to Theile=‘age 
audite,”’ refers doubtless to the announcement 
of the judgment, which comes out quite clear in 
ch. vy. 1, but is here darkly and menacingly al- 
luded to. James is anxious to communicate to 


* Trench says: “Solidarity, a word which we owe to the 
French Communists, and which signifies a community in 
gain and loss, in honour and dishonour, a being, so to 
speak, all in the same bottom, is so convenient that it will 
be in vain to struggle against it.”—M. 


120 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


his readers his sorrowful forebodings of the 
judgment impending on his people. Grotius 
renders: “jam ego ad vos,” de Wette construes 
it as calling upon them to lay aside the respec- 
tive fault, Huther as preparing for the κλαύσατε 
in v. 5. 

Ye that say.—oi λέγοντες, ye that are in the 
habit of using such presumptuous and worldly 
language. 

To-day and to-morrow.—See Appar. Crit. 
καὶ (according to Theile) certainly expresses 
greater confidence than 7; the plan of the jour- 
ney of the restless traders. Wiesinger under- 
stands ‘and to-morrow” of the different plans of 
journey of different persons, Huther thinks that 
it fixed the precise duration of the intended 
journey. But vy. 14 shows that “to-morrow” is 
also added for the purpose of resenting the false 
security of the project. ‘To-morrow ” denotes 
therefore the undefined future subsequent to 
“to-day,” not only a second day; for at that 
time a two days’ journey did not take one very far. 

We will journey; we shall journey, πορευσό- 
μεθα uttered with false, prophetical assurance. 

To such and such a city.—A demonstra- 
tive pronoun instead of the name of the city, 
with the collateral idea that the goal is now one 
city, now another. [I have adopted the render- 
ing this city, because ‘such and such,” ‘this or 
that” is a sense in which ὅδε is not used; at 
least the best Lexica do not give it, and I agree 
with Alford, that Winer p. 174, who refers to 
Plutarch. Sympos. I. 61 for this image of ὅδε: 
τὸ δεῖνα, does not make his point, and that all 
that is necessary, is to suppose that τήνδε τὴν 
πόλιν expresses in general terms the city then 
present to the mind of the speaker.—M. ]. 

And will work there one year.—voveiv 
with a definition of time may denote primarily 
one’s stay at a place; but it probably intimates 
also that the respective time is spent (Acts xv. 
83; xx. 3etc.). But we take the verb ‘‘ work” 
in the sense of “working in the conduct of busi- 
ness.” The definition one year again denotes 
not only the false security of the calculation, but 
also their restless, unsteady habits; then, they 
think, we move on or return. 

And do business [and trafic—M.]. The 
hastily following καὶ and the hastily following 
future are also pictorial expressions descriptive 
of their immoderate false security. Bengel: 
‘“‘Polysyndeton exprimit libidinem animi securi.” 
Huther assents to Kern’s note: ‘Traffic is intro- 
duced only by way of example as characterizing 
man’s doing calculated only with reference to 
earthly life and as contrasted with the life in 
God.” But it is doubtless an example illustrating 
the secular aspect of the chief tendency of the 
Judaism of that time as it already began to de- 
velop itself; and the Apostle with a prophet’s 
glance evidently, describes beforehand the fun- 
damental trait of the diabolically excited world- 
liness of his. people, as it afterwards became 
more and more developed. 

Ver. 14. Yes, ye that know not [whereas 
ye know not E. V. much more correct and idio- 
matic than Lange’s rendering—M.]. οἵτινες, 
properly, ‘‘ye that are of such a kind.” [Alford: 
το μέ qui’—‘‘belonging, as ye do, to a class 
which.””—M. ]. 


What will be to-morrow.—Prov. iii. 28; 
xxvii. 1. The general idea that carnal security 
is here met by ignorance of the future and the 
transitoriness of life (Huther) has here also a 
prophetico-historical bearing. Hence not only: 
“© Ye know not, as mortal men, whether you are 
still alive to-morrow,” but also ‘‘ye have ne 
presentiment of what the next future has in re- 
serve for you with our people.”’ It is to be re- 
membered that these words were written by an 
aged Apostle a few years before that great catas- 
trophe, which brought the greatest misery and 
death on many thousand people not only at Je- 
rusalem (and James considered Jerusalem and 
Judea to belong also to the dispersion of the 
twelve tribes in the enlarged sense of the term), 
but previously also in many cities of the Roman 
Empire (Cesarea, Scythopolis, Ascalon, Damas- 
cus, Alexandria; Josephus, de bello Jud. 2, 18, 
1-8; 20, 2). 

For what is your life ?—Of what sort, 
ποία. It is not only fleeting and perishable 
physically, but as the spiritual life of the nation 
also it is affected with deadly disease and 
deadly destiny. : 

A vapor, forsooth, ye are.—Better ‘“‘For ye 
are a vapor.”—M.]. On γὰρ see Appar. Crit. 
The reading éoré is manifestly a stronger expres- 
sion than éori, applied to their life. ‘They 
themselves are thereby described as a vapor, ag 
it is also said of the πλούσιος ch. i. 10 that he 
shall pass away as the flower of grass.”” Huther. 
Does ἀτμίς denote vapor of fire (smoke, as in 
Acts ii. 19 in connection with καπνοῦ) or vapor 
of water, that is, a misty formation, or is there 
no definite reference designed? We feel inclined 
to take the former view; 1, on account of the 
familiar reference to Acts ii. 19; Joel iii. 1-5; 2, 
on account of the reference to fire in ch. v. 3; 3, 
on account of the greater volatility of the vapor 
of smoke as compared with the vapor of water 
which in the shape of cloudy formation is apt to 
last longer and in reality does not vanish if it 
dissolves into rain. But the real tertiwm compar- 
ationis is certainly the volatility of vapor, pre- 
senting an affinity with the volatility of the 
shadow in Job viii. 9; Ps. cii. 12; exliv. 4. But 
in the last passage the figure also contains the 
idea of a breath and Ps. cii. 4 the figure of 
smoke. Our passage is probably more nearly 
related to the one named last. 

And then (again).—Laying the emphasis on 
φαινομένη, appearing in ‘splendid extension, say 
like an illuminated cloud, καὶ might be rendered 
even: it not only decreases but even vanishes. 
But as objection may be raised to such an em- 
phasis, Huther’s explanation of καὶ is sufficient 
‘as it appeared so it vanished.” Thus Israel as 
a nation, was soon to vanish from the rank of 
nations. 

Ver. 15. Instead of that ye ought to say. 
—These words connect with y. 13, but the pa- 
renthesis v. 14 has the import. of a prolonged 
characterizing address. 

If the Lord will, we shall live.—Sce Ap- 
par. Crit. According to the less authenticated 
reading of the Text Rec. (kai ζήσωμεν), adopted 
by the majority of commentators, καὶ ζήσωμεν is 
generally connected with the protasis. Luther: 
“Tf the Lord will and we live, we shall do this 


CHAP. IV. 4-17. 


121 


or that; Erasmus, Calvin, de Wette.' The sec- 
ond καὶ then denotes the apodosis. Here the 
protasis is divided into two hypothetical ideas: 
if the Lord will and if we live. Grotius and al. 
take the whole somewhat differently: ‘‘if the 
Lord will that we live, then the rest also will 
follow, then we shall do this or that;” but this 
really runs into the construction of Luther. 
Most impracticable is Bornemann’s construction, 
who adopting the Zext Rec., makes καὶ ζήσωμεν 
the apodosis in the sense: ‘let us make our 
livelihood.” The better sense also favours the 
more critically sustained reading. Not only our 
doing depends on the will of the Lord, but also, 
first of all, life itself. Henceif the Lord will, we 
shall live and then do this or that (Wiesinger, 
Huther.) [I prefer the reading ζήσομεν and 
render ‘If the Lord will, we shall both live and 
shall do this or that,” for it is evident that the 
hypothesis controls both our living and doing. 
Our life is dependent on the will of God and our 
doing depends on our living. Cf. Winer, p. 301. 
—M.]. 

Reproof of their false security and forewarning of 
their conscience. vy. 16, 17. 

Ver. 16. But now ye boast yourselves 
in.—But now, ἡ. e. instead of their thinking and 
speaking. Instead of it ye boast yourselves etc., 
according to the preliminary allusion, vy. 15. 

In your illusions. —’AAafoveia denotes 
vaunting or bragging regarded in the light of 
illusion or deception.—But here we must lay more 
stress On the objective, vain, arrogant self-exalt- 
ation than on the boasting. The clause: ‘‘ye 
boast in your boastings”’ (de Wette), is rather 
tautological. Boasting being a joyous testifying 
of the ground of confidence, the sense is as fol- 
lows: ye boast in a ground of peace, consisting 
in those vain illusions or castles in the air, which 
from their nature are multiform. Huther re- 
marks that ἐν denotes not the object but the 
ground of their boasting; but in this boasting 
the ground is really made the object. 

All boasting of such kind.— That is, 
grounded on haughtiness and self-illusion; where- 
as both James and Paul know a holy boasting 
(ch. 1. 9—that is glorying) grounded on the 
most opposite qualities, not on self-exaltation in 
forgetfulness of God and departing from God but 
on self-abasement in reliance on God and resig- 
nation to God. 

Ver. 17. To him now who knoweth to 
do good.—This is not only a moral sentence 
used for the purpose of warning the readers but 
the concluding forewarning addressed to the 
Judaists, followed by the announcement of the 
judgments upon those who still persevere in their 
obduracy; the great turning-point,in the Apostle’s 
argument like our Lord’s last address to the Jews 
Jno. xii. 35 (Matth. xxiii.), or that of Paul, Acts 
xxviii. 28 etc. And first we have to note that 
the main stress lies not on καλόν, as the sum- 
total of good, because this would require the 
Article (so Wiesinger), but on εἰδότε with which 
καλόν κ. τ. A. must be connected. He therefore 
who, although he knows better, omits the good 
and moreover the doing of good which he knows to 
do, to him it is reckoned as sin. The reference 
here, however, is not primarily, that a single sin 
of omission is also sin, but the whole attitude of 

9 


an impenitent religious knowledge, the whole 
self-contradiction of a hypocritical and unfruitful 
orthodoxism is here described as a wholesale sin 
of omission. As sin, according to Rom. i. 21 
began with a great central sin of omission, so it 
is also sealed with the great, all-embracing sin of 
omission of impenitence. But this proposition 
contains also the common doctrine of the single 
sin of omission. Now concerning this knowledge 
of good the question arises (according to Huther) 
whether James refers to the knowledge he had 
imparted to his readers by his exhortations 
(Estius), especially by the last (Grotius, de 
Wette and al.); or whether this knowledge de- 
scribes one already existing in his readers, as 
Huther assumes, observing; ‘the uncertainty of 
human life is something so palpable that those 
who notwithstanding talk in their audacity as if 
it did not exist, as if their life were not dependent 
on God and contrary to their own knowledge do 
not that which is seemly but that which is un- 
seemly and therefore is is so much the more sin 
unto them.” We consider this antithesis as con- 
fusing. It is surely assumed that the readers of 
the Epistle knew from the Old Testament the 
rudiments of doing good and that in this know- 
ledge the Gospel had raised them to the full 
consciousness of the highest degree of doing 
good; but it is assumed with equal certainty 
that this word of the whole Epistle, as a final 
word of exhortation is to them matter of the 
greatest and most decisive importance. The 
word should therefore be taken as a final word 
with reference to their better knowledge of eyan- 
gelical behaviour in general and not merely as 
reminding them of their previous knowledge of 
their dependence on God. We have still to ask 
what is sin to one who knows and doeth not? 
The knowledge by itself, or that knowledge as 
connected with not doing? The former would be 
more piquant and would mean something like 
this: to such an one even his Jewish preroga- 
tives turn to ruin (Rom. x.), The Gospel pro- 
claimed to him first, becomes to him a savor of 
death unto death. However we must distinguish 
sin from the judgment of sin, hence the reference 
cannot be to the better knowledge by itself but 
to the contradiction between knowing and not 
doing, which runs thrugh the whole Epistle as 
the object of the Apostle’s controversy. This 
contradiction becomes sin to the perfect ἀνὴρ 
δίψυχος Which is reckoned to or reserved for him 
i.e. unto judgment. This great forewarning 
introduces the subsequent passage of the judg- 
ment. It.is noteworthy that James seems to 
foresee with assurance that the greater part or 
the mass of Israel would grow obdurate contrary 
to a better knowledge or with an evil conscious- 
ness against domg the truth of the Gospel and 
that all the Judaistic corruptions of his Christian 
readers, which he assails, are also connected 
with such a conscious perverseness in general 
and in the whole, although not with reference to 
every individual in every individual case, and 
although the solidarity ef the judgment is sus- 
pended in the case of believing Jews. 

[The real point of this saying is hardly brought 
out in Lange’s note and not touched at all under 
“Doctrinal and Ethical” and ‘Homiletical and. 
Practical.” The reference is not to sins of. 


122 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


omission, but to sinning against light and know- 
ledge, to doing evil the knowledge of good not- 
withstanding. καλόν v. 17 is the opposite of 
πονηρόν; and the persons, whom James addressed 
knew well enough that they ought to do good, but 
they separated their knowledge from their prac- 
tice and did evil. This verse (vy. 17) contains a 
sharp rebuke, if not a sarcastic reflection on 
their inconsistencies.—M. ] 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. One of the most important life-questions of 
Christian ethics is undoubtedly that of the 
Christian’s relation to the world which surrounds 
him. In answering it James again fully agrees 
with our Lord (cf. Matth. vi. 24), and with Paul 
the Apostle (cf. Rom. xii. 2; 1 Cor. vii. 29-31; 
2 Cor. vi. 14-18). He wants Christians neither 
to conform to the world nor entirely to separate 
themselves from it, but he insists so much the 
more on their being distinguished from the world 
and on their showing that they are governed by 
a very different principle and a much loftier 
spirit than the friends of the world. If this is 
omitted and on the contrary that friendship of 
the world is sought, which is incompatible with 
a harmonious and independent development of 
the Christian life, it must surely lead to the re- 
sult, that God and His service are ultimately 
abandoned. The impossibility of uniting God 
and the world in the heart of a Christian belongs 
to the nature of the case; ef. Matth. xii. 30. 
The world demands that we should love ourselves, 
God requires us to love Him; the world wants 
self-exaltation, God abasement and humility. 
The friend of the world and the friend of God 
are diametrically opposed to each other in prin- 
ciple, inclination and aim. Moreover how can 
there exist a lasting communion among things 
that cannot be reconciled? Here applies the 
saying in Matth. xvi. 26; Luke x. 38-42.— 

2. James as well as the other writers of the 
New Testament receive the γραφῇ as the highest 
authority. 

3. No sin is more loathsome in the sight of God 
than pride. We have only to realize for a 
moment the light in which a holy God cannot but 
regard a guilty sinner in order to understand 
that self-exaltation is not only wicked but almost 
ridiculous before Him. Thus far we may say 
that parcere victis et debellare superbos is the funda- 
mental law of the Divine government both under 
the Old Testament and under the New. Then 
countless examples taken from history prove also 
the truth of the saying, which is constantly heard 
in the Gospel. Cf. Matth. xviii. 4; Luke xviii. 
14; 1 Pet. v. 5. 

4. What James says here (v. 7) of the devil is 
at once a supplement to his doctrine of the origin 
of sin (ch. i. 14, 15) and a corrective of those 
who are wont to dilute the last mentioned passage 
after the manner of the Pelagians. 

5. In writing ‘Draw near to God and He will 
draw near to you”? James by no means wants to 
deny that the grace of God is prevenient and 
free and to teach that the sinner, for his part, 
must first turn to God, before God is able in 
grace to turnto him. This would conflict with 
the nature of the case and also with 1 John iy. 


19. But he is here addressing Christians, whom 
God had already approached before (cf. Is. Ixv. 
1), but who, by their transgressions, had for 
atime departed from God and had first to return 
before they could again enjoy His grace and 
communion. It is once for all impossible to 
merit the favour of God by conversion and 
equally impossible personally to experience it 
without such a genuine conversion. Now all 
temporizing f[indecision, half-work, German 
‘“« Halbtheit”—M.], all discord between the out- 
ward and the inward life is fundamentally in- 
compatible with such a genuine conversion. Cf. 
Luke xi. 35-41, 

6. True joy is the child of sorrow for sin. 
Man has therefore his choice here on earth be- 
tween short grief to be followed hereafter by 
constant joy and short joy to be followed here- 
after by eternal grief. Cf. Matth. v. 3, 4; Luke 
yi. 21; 2 Cor. vii. 10. 

7. Nothing is more sad and pernicious than 
that Christians also in their intercourse with 
each other yield themselves so often to loveless 
calumny and forget the words of the Lord Jesus, 
Matth. vii. 1-6. In this connection attention 
should be called to rash contradiction and hasty 
judging which are often the effects of ignorance 
or disgraceful passion; to censoriousness which 
contrary to men’s own better conviction magnifies 
the faults of their neighbour and overlooks his 
good parts, in direct opposition to the Avostolic 
precept, 1 Cor. xiii. 4-7; to calumny, slander, 
tale-bearing, back-biting, ete., on which vices 
Reinhard’s System of Christian Morality, 4th ed. 
I. p. 681-693 deserves to be consulted. [Also 
Jeremy Taylor’s Sermons,—TZhe Good and Hvil 
Tongue—Slander and Flattery—The Duties of the 
Tongue.—M.]. He justly observes that partial 
and passionate reviewers are not unfrequently 
guilty of these vices to an eminent degree. 
Compare also Bayle’s Dissertations sur les libelles 
difamatoires, in Vol. IV. of his Dictionnaire, and 
the capital sketch of an accomplished calumniator 
in Gellert’s Moralische Vorlesungen, Ὁ. 647 ete. 
It is self-evident how ill all this accords with the 
duties of Christian brotherly love. Cf. 1 Cor. 
iv. 5; Eph. iv. 25; Col. iii. 13. 

8. “The law protects our neighbour by the 
precept of brotherly love; he who notwithstand- 
ing injuriously assails him, violates the protect- 
ing law itself, sets himself above the law and 
makes choice of that part of the law he means 
to observe or not to observe; but in doing so, he 
ceases to be a doer of the law.” von Gerlach. 

9. The Christian must also show in his daily 
life that he is influenced in all things by the 
sense of dependence whieh is the real founda- 
tion of the religious and moral life. James in 
concert with Solomon (Prov. xxvii. 1), with our 
Lord Himself (Matth. vi. 84) and with the Epis- 
tle to the Hebrews (ch. vi. 8) urges this upon 
his readers. Many a sinful action would remain 
undone, many a hasty step would not be taken, 
if the words ‘If the Lord will and we live” 
were not only on the lips but in the hearts of 
men. Compare the treatise of Morus, ‘de homi- 
ne submittente se Deo,” in Opusculis, IL p. 123. 
866. 
V0. There is not a more extensive region of 
sin than that on which James allows us to cast 


CHAP. IV 4-17. 


123 


a solitary glance (vy. 17), the region of sins of 
omission, and again none in which not a few ex- 
hibit less concern. How many are perfectly 
satisfied if in their opinion they have not done 
any thing in thought, in word or in deed, which 
conflicts with the love of God and of our neigh- 
bour, although they have never accused them- 
selves of that which unconsciously or designedly 
they omitted to do! Many secretly object to 
such simple and self-evident exhortations as 
those in vv. 138-16, that they have known it all a 
long time without considering that knowing 
without doing is altogether inexcusable, cf. Jno. 
iii. 17.—‘‘ The omission of good is the commis- 
sion of evil. In this manner we actually may 
become thieves and murderers; 6. g., the priest 
and the Levite who passed by the unfortunate 
sufferer, offended by omitting to observe the 
sixth commandment. This omission of good is 
also connected with slackness in doing good; 
gradually men become more and remiss in doing 
until at last all love of and longing for good 
leaves them and this is the death of which we 
must be on our guard. Beware, therefore, of 
procrastination! By deferring a thing we ought 
to do from day to day, we come to lessen its im- 
portance and soon forget it altogether. Such 
negligences disclose to us the slothfulness of our 
heart, a most dangerous and critical state of 
disease.” Viedebandt. 

[v. 12. Sanderson: ‘The words of St. James 
assert that there is but one Lawgiver—not one 
selected out of many, nor one above all the rest, 
but one exclusively; that is, one, and but one 
alone, who is able to save and destroy. What 
was usually applied to the prerogatives of Kings, 
may be justly said of the conscience of every man, 
that it is subject to none but God, and knows no su- 
perior upon earth. Memorable is the observation 
of the Emperor Maximilian, ‘To offer to. domi- 
neer over the conscience, is to assault the cita- 
del of heaven.” Zhat man is ἃ plunderer of the 
Divine Glory, and an invader of the authority 
that belongs to God, whosoever he be, that 
claims a right over the consciences of men, or 
usurps upon them. Let the popes of Rome, and 
the train of canonists, jesuits and sycophants, that 
flatter and fawn upon them, clear themselves, if 
they can, of this sacrilege; and let such as sub- 
mit their consciences to the power of any creature, 
which only ought to be subject to God, be care- 
ful lest by transferring the honour of that ser- 
vice that belongs to God, to any creature upon 
earth, they make a god of that creature, and so, 
in effect become guilty of idolatry. 

From this first conclusion thus proved, follows 
this remarkable inference, that the proper rule 
of the conscience is that which God, the Supreme 
Lawgiver, has prescribed to it; and besides that, 
there is no other that ought to be admitted. 

Yet this hinders not, that there may be other 
lawgivers of an inferior order, who by authority 
derived to them from the Supreme power, may 
have a just right to make laws, and consequently 
to bind the conscience to obedience. We do 
not say that God has committed to the Magis- 
trate a power to oblige the consciences of his 
people by laws, but rather (to speak with more 
care and propriety) that God has given to the 
magistrate a jurisdiction to make laws, which by 


virtue alone of the Divine authority, do oblige 
the consciences of the subject; for properly 
speaking, the Magistrate does not oblige the 
conscience to obey the law, but God obliges the 
conscience to obey the magistrate.’”’—M. ]. 

[v. 17. Wordsworth: This conclusion of St 
James is added as the summing up of the argu- 
ment, in the same manner as the aphorism with 
which St. Paul closes his reasonings concerning 
a doubting conscience, where he says, ‘‘ Whatso- 
ever is not of faith, is sin,” that is, whenever a 
man does anything without being persuaded in his 
mind that he may lawfully do it, he is guilty of 
sin. Rom. xiy. 29. 

St. James appears to have his eye here on this 
statement of St. Paul. 

St. James adds to it another maxim of general 
import, viz., that whensoever a man omits to do 
anything which he is persuaded in his own mind 
that he ought to do, he is guilty of sin. 

Thus these two Apostolic verdicts, delivered 
in a similar manner, constitute two fundamental 
rules of human action, as to what men are bound 
to forbear doing, and as to what they are bound 
to do. 

Those persons whom St. Paul addressed, were 
tempted to do many things, which they did not, 
in their consciences, approve; and the Apostle 
warns them, that if they do any thing against 
their conscience, they commit sin. 

They to whom St. James wrote, were vain- 
glorious of their religious knowledge; but they 
were not careful to show forth their religious 
knowledge by religious practice; and the Apostle 
teaches them that their knowledge will only in- 
crease their guilt, unless they do what they know 
to be right. 

Hence, while it is sin to shun knowledge, and 
there is some sin of tgnorance (cf. Augustine 6, 
661), and it is a sin to shut the ears to instruc- 
tion; and it is a duty to get knowledge, to increase 
in knowledge, to abound in knowledge, we must 
beware not to rest in knowledge. We must add 
to our knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, 
brotherly kindness, charity. Without these know- 
ledge is unprofitable; nay, will only increase our 
condemnation. See Sanderson 3, p. 232-234. 
Cf. Luke xii. 47; Jno. ix. 41; xv. 22; and see 
the woes pronounced on Chorazin and Capernaum, 
Matth. xi. 21.—M. ]. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Friendship with the world, enmity of God.— 
The Christian’s relation to the world which sur- 
sounds him.—On spiritual adultery, cf. Hos. ii. 
1-19.—The Scripture should never utter a sin- 
gle word in vain to the Christian, cf. Jno. x. 
356.—The Spirit that dwells in Christians is de- 
cidedly opposed to every manifestation of hatred 
and envy.—God is able to do exceeding abund- 
antly above all that we ask or think (under- 
stand), Eph. iii. 20.—God resisteth the proud 
but giveth grace to the humble: 1. This zs not 
otherwise according to the voice of history and 
experience; 2. It cannot be otherwise, if we con- 
sider the relation of God and the sinner; 3. It 
shall not be otherwise if God is to be glorified 
and the sinner preserved; 4. It wil/ never be 
otherwise and the sinner had therefore better 


124 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


a 


lay it to heart.—(vv. 6, 7). How God stands to 
the humble Christian and how the humble 
‘Christian stands to his God.—The necessity of 
a constantly renewed conversion towards God 
after every new aberration.—The greatest de- 
mand of the Christian life: draw near to God, 
and its greatest consolation: He will draw nigh 
to you.—The insignificance of clean hands with- 
out a clean heart; the inward and the outward 
must be indissolubly united in conversion.—The 
beginning of conversion, the end of every sinful 
joy.—If we did not remain so far from God, God 
also would not remain so far from us.—The 
commandment of inward purification can never 
be fulfilled without prayer, Ps. li. 12.—(vv. 10, 
11). The Christian life a union of humility and 
love. He who truly knows and humbles himself 
before God will neither have the desire nor the 
courage to judge his brother uncharitably.—Sin- 
ning against our brother is also sinning against 
God.—Slander in religious associations and Chris- 
tian circles: 1, The traces, 2, the sources, 3, the 
fruits of this vice. —He that speaks evil of others 
injures thereby 1, the brother whom he calum- 
niates, 2, the neighbour who listens to him, 3, 
but most of all himself.—The Christian indeed is 
called to be a doer of the word but not in order 
to be a judge of the law.—The relation in which 
God stands to the transgressor of the command- 
ment of love: 1, as the Lawgiver, 2, as the only 
Lawgiver, 3, as the only Lawgiver who is able 
to save and to destroy.—(v. 13, etc.). On our 
dependence on God even in the actions of our 
daily life.—Difference between the Christian- 
minded and the worldly-minded merchant.— 
Christian and unchristian travelling. Our igno- 
rance of the future, 1, the alarm it occasions, 2, 
the benefit it works.—‘‘What is your life?” 
Different answers to this question from the 
standpoint 1, of experience, 2, of faith.—Life a 
vapor which is to ascend fragrant as incense. — 
How much cause have we not only to think but 
also to say: ‘If the Lord will and we live!” 1. 
Reasons for this frame of mind: a. death or 
want of ability prevent not seldom the execution 
of our best plans; ὃ. the plans of others often 
conflict with ours or ours with theirs and both 
neutralize one another; 6. we are often de- 
prived of the opportunity or the desire to carry 
out our plans, but all under the guidance of God. 
2. Fruits of this frame of mind: it will a. make 
us careful in laying, ὁ. thankful for the success, 
c. submissive and satisfied with the frustration 
of our most cherished plans and desires.—Me- 
mento mori, cf. Ps. xc. and ciii.—The problem 
of life must never be considered apart from its 
direct connection with death.—Lawful and un- 
lawful glorying on the Christian standpoint.— 
The great chasm between knowing, willing and 
doing.—The greatness of seemingly little sins 
of omission.—‘‘He that knoweth to do good, 
etc.” Extended application of this rule to the 
field of Christian philanthrophy and of Missions 
among the heathen. 

Srarke: Lurwer:—Envious men are not the 
temples of the Holy Ghost, ch. iii. 14, 15; 2 
Tim. i. 7.—The proud instead of the honour, 
after which they run, receive shame and dis- 
honour, Matth. xxv. 833.—The more of humility, 
the more of grace; if in valleys some hollows are 


deeper than others, the water collects in them, 
Luke ν. 8.—Humility of heart is the most certain 
way not only to the love of our fellow-men but 
also to honour from God Himself. Luke xiv. 
ἘΠῚ 

Hepincer:—The enemy is not conquered by 
sleep. Take the sword of the Spirit, the helmet 
of hope, the shield of faith, then thou art equipped 
for the contest, Eph. vi. 11.—Nothing unclean is 
able to combine with God, the most pure Being, 
15. i. 16.—Humility the surest road to constant 
exaltation, Matth. xxiii. 12.—To speak evil of 
our brother does more harm than is generally 
thought; as many words, so many wounds are 
struck in the conscience, Ps. lii. 4; cxl. 12. 

Nova Brat. Tus.:—A pious man always guards 
his tongue lest it judge his neighbour and defame 
him, Rom. xiv. 13. 

LutrHer :—God gave us His law, not that we 
should censure it, but keep it. Deut. vii. 11. 

Srarxe:—Human legislators are able to ren- 
der those, who obey their commandments, to 
some extent happy, but they can neither save 
them nor themselves; God is able to do both 
perfectly.—The Apostle does not absolutely dis- 
allow commerce, he only blames those who are 
so covetous that they forget God in their business 
and think that every thing depends on their 
cunning, chasing and running, and do not re- 
member that they cannot do any thing without 
the grace of God. Trading and chaffering has 
been peculiar to the Jews before and after the 
birth of Christ, especially to those who have 
lived out of Canaan, their country. For because 
they had no landed property among foreign na- 
tions, they were compelled to make their living 
by trade, which is the case now, if only it were 
done as it ought to be done. 

Nova Bist. Tus.:—O wretched man that lay- 
est out such great plans, dost thou not know that 
to-morrow God may require thy soul at thy 
hands? Luke xii. 19, 20. 

Lana op.:—Nothing is more common than 
that the healthiest bodies of any age are all of a 
sudden attacked by divers diseases, Job. xiv. 2. 

Hepinaer:—The will of God is the sole rule 
of Christians in all matters relating to the body 
or the soul, asin the case of Christ and Paul, 
Jno. iv. 84; 1 Cor. iv. 19; Acts xxi. 18, 14.— 
The will of God permits also evil but turns it to 
the welfare of His children, Gen. 1. 20.—An evil 
cause and a stubborn mind full of self-glorying 
go generally together, ch. iii. 14; Rom, i. 30. 

LANGIt op.:—Ignorance is no excuse in cases 
where knowledge might have been had; but if a 
man knows better and yet is unfaithful and dis- 
obedient, he only aggravates his guilt accord- 
ingly, Luke xii. 47, 48. 

(v. 11) Srrer:—I must judge in my heart in 
order to preserve myself from evil and to retain 
only what is good; I owe it in love to my 
brother to censure and exhort him in order to 
make him better and to prosper his soul. But 
this is altogether different from haughty, angry 
rebuking and scolding when I converse with 
some one about his sin; but the worst of all, and 
that which uniformly begets still greater discord, 
is the, alas, nowhere uncommon although thor- 
oughly concealed vice of backbiting, which Lu- 
ther in his Catechism has wisely ranged under 


CHAP. IV. 4-17. 


the eighth commandment. People discourse 
without vocation or duty, from sheer wanton- 
ness with a hateful temper of one’s supposed sin 
to another; speak evil of their brother behind 
his back, as a false brother, instead of saying it 
sincerely to his face. Thus acted the heathen in 
the Apostolic age towards the Christians, wan- 
tonly refused to see their good works and pre- 
ferred to backbite them as evil-doers (1 Pet. ii. 
12). Thus still act nowadays baptized heathen 
towards the godly, saying of them and burden- 
ing them with all manner of evil falsely. If this 
is done also among those who pretend to be 
brethren, verily the Holy Spirit strongly testifies 
against it and rather teaches Christians for their 
part not to deal thus with the children of the 
world. Where such backbiting takes place there 
is never a good conscience or a courageous an- 
swer to the questions: would I say this of him, 
if he were present? why do I not first tell him? 
why and for what purpose do I now speak of it? 
—tThere is neither obedience of duty nor intent 
of love; here speaks and judges one’s own pre- 
sumptuous, haughty mind, hence it runs so soon 
into judging falsely or even, if the matter were 
really so, into condemning, into damning judg- 
ment, which is at any rate absolutely forbid- 
den. 

(v. 17). Weare unprofitable servants before 
the Most Highest: that is certain, for all profita- 
bleness comes only from Him; but it is just be- 
cause He makes us profitable that we are bound 
to do whatever is commanded us, to be diligent 
in doing good, as we know it, according to the 
will of God. James puts this lastly in the place 
of every self-willed doing of this or that. If we 
suffer ourselves to be found in good works as- 
piring for eternal life, then our earthly life verily 
has become more than a vapor, which vanishes 
away, then it is the seed-time of the great harvest 
of true gain. 

Jakosr: (v. 15):—“If the Lord will and I 
live.” There are indeed not a few Christians 
who take the precept of our text literally and 
think that they are sinning if in speaking of the 
future, they do not every time employ such a 
pious addition. But if faith here borders almost 
on superstition and if we actually find the traces 
of such superstition even in many otherwise en- 
lightened Christians, is it not true that this mo- 
mentous saying “ΤΕ the Lord will and 1 live” 
sinks down into a mere conventionalism, if we 
carry it on our lips on every trifling oceasion ? 
and is it not to be feared that that which we 
should always utter only with a profound and 
most living sense of our impotence and the om- 
nipotence of God, degenerates into a mere, blind 
habit? Let us apply also in this respect the 
mighty saying of St. Paul: ‘*The kingdom of 
God is not in word, but in power,” 1 Cor. iy. 
20.— 

NEanpER :—‘‘If the Lord will and we live.” 
It is evident that James in saying this did not 
insist upon it, that we should always express 
such a condition in words. Such expressions 
might easily degenerate into mere forms and 
those Churches, in virtue of their whole tendency, 
were apt to turn every thing into a mere form. 
James, as we have already seen, is fond of 
haming the specific instead of the general 


/ 125 


thought, and instead of expressing the general 
thought of the uncertainty and dependence of 
our whole earthly life, makes use of language 
calculated to indicate the general thought by its 
application to a specific case. 

HevuBner: (y. 15) :—James will appear to some 
as a pietist, but just from what he says we may 
know what genuine, sincere piety is. He is 
truly pious, whose piety interpenetrates also his 
whole heart, his whole life and his whole doing. 
To carry on even his earthly affairs with God 
characterizes the Christian: ‘‘with God” is his 
motto in every thing, Col. iii. 17.—The spirit of 
enterprise without religion is always pride.— 

Lisco: (vv. 7-10):—All our doing is at the 
same time the work of God.—(vv. 11-17) The 
danger of pride: 1, It misleads us to judge 
others uncharitably (vy. 11, 12); 2, it seduces us 
to trust over much in our own strength (vy. 13- 
17).—The unchristian element in the conduct of 
temporal affairs.— 

PorvuBszKy: (vv. 4-6):—Worldly and spirit- 
ual.—(vv. 6, 7) Be subject to God.—(vv. 7, 8) 
The greatest task of human willing.—(vy. 8-10) 
Three steps to genuine repentance: 1, grief; 
2, faith; 8, work.—(vv. 11, 12). Our judgment 
of others condemns ourselves.—(vy. 13-17). Of 
assurance in our worldly affairs. — 

WEINECK: (vv. 13-15):—In what Christian 
families may find comfort in the retrospect of a 
departing year.— 

Wor: (vv. 18-16):—Man may become the 
destroyer but not the architect of his happi- 
ness. 

(Wuirsy: v. 11:—The great exception which 
both the unbelieving Jews and the Judaizing 
Christians among them had against the believing 
Gentiles was this ‘‘they observed not their 
feasts or Sabbaths and that they were not cir- 
cumcised,” whence they concluded they differed 
little from the heathens. This was the thing for 
which the Christian fathers did contend against 
them; viz. that the ancient patriarchs of old 
were acceptable to God, and consequently the 
Christians, and especially the converted Gen- 
tiles, might be acceptable to God without the 
observation of these feasts and Sabbaths or of 
circumcision. 

y. 15. It was a rule of Ben Syra (Buxt. Flor. 
p. 4) ‘‘ Let no man say he will do any thing, un- 
less he first say, If the Lord will:’”? who also 
adds, that ‘‘one died before night, for refusing to 
add this.”” And when Alcibiades had said to 
Socrates, ‘I will do so if you will,” Socrates 
(Plat. Alcib. 1, in fine) tells him he ought to 
have said, ἐὰν ὁ θεὸς ἐθέλῃ, “if God will.” Not 
that we are obliged always to say thus (Rom. 
xy. 28), but only still to own our dependence 
upon Divine Providence.—M. ]. 

[v. 17. Ἑἰϊδότε οὖν. Menander says: “It is 
manifest folly to know what we ought to do and 
not do it.—M. ]. 

[Macknicut :—yvy. 8. This and other exhorta- 
tions of the like kind found in Scripture imply, 
that in matters of religion and virtue men must 
codperate with the grace of God by their own 
earnest endeayours.—M. ]. 

[Pyte: v. 11. As to you, dear brethren, who 
are already converted to Christianity, be sure to 
ayoid that pernicious custom of slander and 


126 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


i ——— ἰἘτὺτὃῦοθῷἃ6Χ ῺἔὲΓ΄΄΄΄΄΄΄“΄΄“΄Πππς,0257ᾳὸ]ὺΤ͵Ὰ7΄-. .. ὕ 


rash censure. Remember, that whoever hastily 
and unjustly condemns another man, reflects 
upon religion itself, sets up for a judge and 
makes himself wiser than the Divine Law. And 
such an one must not pretend to be a true disciple 
of that law, while he sets himself above it.—M. |. 

[v. 17. Now this, or any other crime, must be 
greater in a Christian than in any other man; 
because he, by the clear revelation of the Gos- 
pel, has or ought to have better notions of his 
duty, and a stronger sense of his religious obli- 
gations.—M. ]. 

(Burkitt: v. 17. Let us learn hence, that to 
sin against light and knowledge, is a very hei- 
nous aggravation of sin, because the knowledge of 
our duty lays us under the greatest obligation to 
do it; and that the greater advantages and op- 
portunities any man has of knowing his duty, 
and the more knowledge he sins against in not 
doing it, the greater is his sin, and the more 
grievous will be his condemnation.—M. ]. 

[v. 4. There is a sense in which a man may be 
a friend of the world and yet remain the friend 
of God, and this seeming paradox is the duty of 
every Christian and more especially of the min- 
ister of Christ. He must be the world’s true 
friend by telling the world its faults, exposing 
its corrupt maxims in a spirit of tender love and 
solicitude by preaching the truth of the everlast- 
ing Gospel and endeavouring to gain the world 
to Jesus Christ. ] 

y. 8. The Father, in the parable, running to 
meet the returning prodigal, a Divine illustration 
of the words “Draw nigh to God and He will 
draw nigh to you.”—Outward lustrations are not 
sufficient, the heart must be purified as well. 
dyvicare καρδίας, literally ‘‘make chaste your 
hearts”? alludes to their spiritual adultery (v. 
4), and the whole clause may be applied to bap- 
tized Christians whose hearts are in the world. 

y. 13. Deparim Rapsa, 2 9. p. 261. 1 we read 
as follows: “ΟἿΣ rabbis tell us a story, which 
happened in the days of Rabbi Simeon the son 
of Chelpatha. He was present at the circumcis- 
ion of a child and stayed with his father to the 
entertainment. The father brought out wine for 
his guests, that was seven years old, saying, 
With this wine will I continue for a long time to 
celebrate the birth of my new-born son. They con- 
tinued supper till midnight. At that time, Rabbi 
Simeon arose and went out, that he might return 
to the city in which he dwelt. On the way he 
saw the angel of death walking up and down. He 
said to him, Who art thou? He answered, I am 
the messenger of God. The rabbi said, Why 
wanderest thou about thus? He answered, I 
slay those persons who say, We will do this or 
that and think not how soon death may over- 
power them: that man with whom thou hast 
“supped, and who said to his guests, With this 
wine will I continue for a long time to celebrate the 
birth of my new-born son, behold the end of his 


rile is at hand, for he shall die within thirty 
ays.” 

v. 16,,Clarke cites from an old English work 
“The godly man’s picture drawn by a Scripture 
pencil” the words: ‘*Some of those who despise 
religion say, Thank God we are not of this holy 
number! They who thank God for their unholi- 
ness, had best go ring the bells for joy that they 
shall never see God.” 

vy. 18, The same author cites the following 
from Saady’s Gulistan: “1 knew a merchant 
who used to travel with a hundred camels laden 
with merchandise and who had forty slaves in 
his employ. This person took me one day to his 
warehouse and entertained me a long time with 
conversation good for nothing. ‘I have,’ said 
he, ‘such a partner in Turquestan, such and 
such property in India, a bond for so much cash 
in such a province, a security for such another 
sum.’ Then, changing the subject, he said, ‘I 
purpose to settle in Alexandria, because the air 
of that city is salubrious.’ Correcting himself, 
he said, ‘No, I will not go to Alexandria; the 
African Sea (the Mediterranean) is too dangerous. 
But I will make another voyage and after that I 
will retire into some quiet corner of the world, 
and give up mercantile life.’ I asked him, what 
voyage he intended to make? He answered, ‘I 
intend to take brimstone to Persia and China, 
where I am informed it brings a good price; 
from China I shall take porcelain to , Greece; 
from Greece I shall take gold tissue to India; 
from India I shall carry steel to Haleb (Aleppo); 
from Haleb I shall carry glass to Yemen (Arabia 
Felix); and from Yemen 1 shall carry printed 
goods to Persia. This accomplished, I shall bid 
farewell to mercantile life, which requires so 
many troublesome journeys and spend the rest 
of my life in a store.’ He said so much on this 
subject, till at last he wearied himself with talk- 
ing: then turning to me, he said, ‘I entreat thee 
Saady, to relate to me something of what thou 
hast seen and heard in thy travels.’ Ianswered 
‘Hast thou never heard what a traveller said, 
who fell from his camel in the desert of Yoor?’ 
Two things only can fill the eye of a covetous man 
—contentment or the earth that is cast on him when 
laid in his grave.” —M.]. 

Compare also on 

vy. ὃ. Br. Haru. The duty of drawing nigh 

to God. Works, v. 745. 

Br. Smatringe. Of double-mindedness. 
4 Sermons. Sermons, 349. 
Rosert Hatt, Humility before God. 

Notes of Sermons. Works, vy. 812. 

. Barrow. Against detraction. Works, 

i. 6238. 

Sypney Smiru. On Slander. 

257. 

Cuatmers. The guilt of calumny. 
Posth. Works, vi. 12. 
ΒΡ. Sanperson. Preelectiones. 


y. 10. 


Sermons, 


v. 12. 


CHAP. V. 1-6. 


127 


Bish de a eT ee ᾿Ξ 


IX. SEVENTH ADMONITION. 
DENUNCIATION AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE IMPENDING JUDGMENT ON THE RICH 


I E., THE JUDAISTS PROPER, COUCHED IN PROPHETIC STYLE. 
THE PRESENTIMENT OF THE JUDGMENT. 


TO REPENTANCE OR TO 


EXHORTATION 


Cuapter Y. 1-6. 


1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you." 


2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments 
3 cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness 
Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire 


4 as it were fire. 


of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, 


are motheaten. Your gold and silver is 


against you, and shall eat your flesh? 


which is of you kept back by fraud, 


crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord 


5 of Sabaoth. 
6 


just; and he doth not resist you. 


Vorse 1. 1 Cod. Sin. inserts ὑμῖν after ἐπερχομ έ: 
Lange: Well then, ye rich, weep unto howli 


Ye have lived in pleasure on the 
nourished your hearts, as‘ in a day of slaughter.® 


earth, and been wanton; ye have 
Ye have condemned and killed the 


vacs [so Vulg. Syr. Copt. #th. Arm.—M.j 
ng over your calamities which are drawing near on you. 


[Go to now, ye rich, weep howling over your miseries which are coming upon you. | 


Verse 2. 
.... corrupted... .M.) 
Verse 3. [2 Cod. Sin. A. inserts ὃ 


Lange: Your riches are {already ] corrupting, 


and your garments are become motheaten. 


ios after σάρκας Upov—M.] 


Lange: Your gold and the silver is rusted and their rust will be a testimony against you and shall consume 
your flesh [sapxas, your carnalities] as fire. Ye haye heaped up treasure in the last {these last] days. 


[Your gold and your silver are eaten up with rust and their rust shall be for a testimony to you.... 


heaped up treasure in the Jast days.—M. } 
Verse 4. [8 Cod. Sin. B. read ἀφυστερημένος 


Ye 


for ἀπεστερημένος.--Μ.1 


Tian go's! |. 65.0 which hath been kept back, crieth out from you, and the cries of the reapers have come to 


the ears of the Lord of hosts. 


_... have entered into the ears of the Lord of hosts.—M.] 


Verse 5. 6 Cod. Sin. A. B. omit ws before ἐν ; so Vulg. and other versions ; 


- exegetical addition. 
[5 Aeth. Pell Platt’s edition. 
Lange: 
the day of slaughter. 


found in Rec., α. K. and is probably an 


“ut qui saginat bovem in diem mactationis.—M.| 
Ye have lived high on earth, ye have lived wantonly and fattened [like flesh] your hearts [as] in 


[Ye lived in luxury on the earth and wantoned (Alford); ye fattened your hearts in... . M.] 


Verse 6. : 
saving]. ~ 


Lange: Ye have condemned, ye haye killed the Just. 


He doth not resist you [any longer opposing and 


[Ye condemned, ye killed the Just One. He doth not resist you.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


1. Analysis: The Judaists exhorted to repent- 
ance or to realize a presentiment of the judg- 
ment, v. 1.—Their condition: spiritual self- 
delusion, the corruptness and self-consumption 
of their supposed riches, vv. 2, 3.—Their posi- 
tive sins resulting from such spiritual self- 
delusion. ‘Their sins against the reapers of the 
harvest in Israel.—Their unsuspecting assurance 
of their life of indulgence in the very day of 
their judgment. The crime of the murder of the 
Just One, vv. 4-6. 

The Judaists exhorted to repentance or to realize 
a presentiment of the judgment. 

Ver. 1. Well then, ye rich.—Concerning 
the rich see Introduction, ch. i. 10 and ii. 6, 
7. That the reference is not to the outwardly 
rich but to the rich in the sense of Old Tes- 
tament (Ps. Ixxiii.; Is. v.), Gospel (Matth. xix. 
94. Rey. iii. 17) and symbolical usage may be 
expected from an Apostolical man, to say nothing 
of an Apostle. The ordinary construction put 
on this term would lead us to expect either that 
the Epistle ought to have driven the outwardly 


rich from the Church or that they would have 
excluded the Epistle from the Canon. But just 
as the Jewish Christians themselves have ceased 
to be known so also the Gentile Christian Church 
has suffered the majestic prophetical penitential 
discourse of the faithful Christian Apostle to the 
Jews to be reduced to the conception of a severe 
moral lecture. The repetition of aye viv does 
not prove that the reference here is to the same 
persons who are addressed in ch. iv. 13 (as 
Huther supposes). Nor is the reference at all 
to individuals as such; the persons addressed 
there are Judaists in a most perilous condition, 
while those addressed here are those who ac- 
cording to the last warning harden themselves 
by the self-delusion of their being theocratically 
rich. The entire prophetical lamentation must 
be judged according to its analogies in the Old 
Testament (Is. 11. 22; Ch. 111. 9, 19 etc.) the 
words of Christ (Matth. xxiii.) and the Apoca- 
lypse (ch. xviii.). 

Weep unto howling.—De Wette and al. 
take this as an exhortation to shed the tears of 
repentance; Huther agrees with Calvin who 
denies that there is any reference to repentance 
and considers the passage to be ‘‘ simplex denun- 


128 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


ee eee eee 


ciatio judicii dei, qua eos terrere voluit ab spe veniz.”’ 
Wiesinger takes a middle position: that the de- 
sign of James, as in the case of the prophets of 
the Old Testament, is nevertheless none other 
than that of moving them, if possible, to turn 
from their perverse course. Huther, who objects 
that James nowhere intimates such design, over- 
looks 1, that also the strongest menaces of judg- 
ment in the Old Testament are at any rate hypo- 
thetical (see the Book of Jonah, Jer. Xviii. 7 etc.), 
2, that the most assured foreseeing of the inevi- 


tability of the judgment as a whole still involves | 


the possibility of individuals being wakened and 
saved in virtue of such menace, 3, that the Divine 
fore-announcement of such a judgment is at the 
same time made as a testimony of the truth for 
the future and designed to serve other genera- 
tions as a warning and to conduce to their sal- 
vation. The strict construction of Huther is 
still more striking because he disputes Semler’s 
exposition of the Imperative, viz. ‘‘stilo pro- 
phetico imperat, ut rem certissimam demonstret,” 
and maintains that the proper force of the Im- 
perative ought to be retained. This would there- 
fore be a command to weep without any hope of 
salvation. The Participle ὀλολύζοντες (ὑλολύζειν 
used often to describe howling with reference to 
the near approach of the judgment, Is. xiii. 6; 
xiv. 81 etc.) denotes weeping accompanied by 
constant howling, ἡ. 6. increasing unto howling. 

Over your miseries,—The impending judg- 
ments, not specified by the Apostle, but further 
alluded to only with respect to their premonitory 
symptoms. ᾿ 

Which are drawing near on you.—There 
is hardly room to doubt that James refers pri- 
marily to the Jewish war and the destruction of 
Jerusalem; so Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, Mi- 
chaclis and al. understand it. Huther cannot 
substantiate by any proof the remark that 
‘they (Thomas Aquinas, etc.) are not wrong 
in this respect, because in the Apostle’s mind 
the destruction of Jerusalem and the last judg- 
ment had not yet been distinguished.” The 
ταλαιπωρίαι are rather said to be ἐπερχόμεναι, 
already approaching; whereas a very patient 
waiting is necessary with respect to the coming 
of the Lord, v. 7, οἷο, although in the light of 
Christian hope (not of chiliastic calculation) it 
is near at hand. On you, by which Luther and 
others further define the approaching judgments, 
follows not from the literal expression but from 
the connection; ἐπί also contains an allusion, 
favouring the construction. [See Appar. Crit. 
Note 1.—M.]. 

Their condition: spiritual self-delusion, the corrupt- 
ness and self-consumption of their supposed riches. 
vv. 2, 3. 

Ver. 2. Your riches are corrupted.—The 
verb σήπω (ἅπαξ Hey. in N. T.), to make rotten 
or putrid, destroy by rottenness, signifies in 2 
Perf. Pass. (as here) to rot, moulder, to be rot- 
ten or also to bein a state of rotting fermenta- 
tion. But it has also the more general sense, to 
corrupt, to consume oneself (Sir. xiv. 19). 
a is Perf. Middle.—M.]. The verb there- 

ore does not necessitate us to understand with 
Gebser and al. mAo0vroc—=frumenta. The main 
question here is to determine whether this and 
the next expression denote the natural immanent 


judgment of sin as portents of the positive judg- 
ments, or the latter (Grotius, Bengel), so that 
future events are prophetically described as 
having already taken place (de Wette, Wiesin- 
ger, Huther and al.). But the reference is evi- 
dently to the former; the corrupting of riches 
and the moth-eaten garments denote immanent, 
natural corruptions. But here, as in the pro- 
phets (Is. xxviii. 1,2; ch. xxxiii. 11, 12; Jer. 
vii. etc.) and in our Lord’s eschatological dis- 
course (Matth. xxiv. 28) these natural corrup- 
tions, as the judgment of the self-dissolution 
(—consumption) of sin, are in their products 
the tokens of positive judgment. But the riches 
must be taken figuratively, not literally as is 
generally done. The prophetical idea of the rich 
corresponds to the prophetical idea of the riches. 
It denotes therefore externalized Judaistic right- 
eousness with all its national prerogatives, of 
course connected with that outward worldly pros- 
perity and ease which are the outward comple- 
ments of such self-righteousness. It is matter of 
historical record that at the time when James wrote 
this Epistle, Jewish affairs had the appearance 
of spiritual prosperity (in point of orthodoxy and 
world-holiness), as well as of worldly flourishing 
in the reign (in part at least) of Herod Agrippa 
1. (See my Apost. Age. I. pp. 307, 312, 324). 

And your garments.—Doubtless in the 
sense of the splendid garment ch. ii. 2. 

Are become moth-eaten, o7763pwroc, Job 
xiii. 28: not found in Classic Greek and not else- 
where in the New Testament. 

Ver. 3. Your gold and your silver are 
eaten up with rust.—x«arTidw is ἅπαξ λεγ. in 
the New Testament. Gold and silver do not 
contract rust, hence Hornejus observes that it is 
populariter dictum, which is approved by Huther. 
Pott interprets the striking expression of the 
dimness of their burnish, others otherwise. Ac- 
cording to Huther James did not anxiously cal- 
culate the difference of metals in his vivid con- 
crete depiction; but this would be an intensely 
popular mode of expression. The words Is. i. 
22, «Thy silver is become dross” are not a 
merely popular expression; on the contrary 
they are designed to bring out the unnatural 
fact that the princes of Israel are become rebel- 
lious and companions of thieves. It is then an 
unnatural phenomenon to which James adverts, 
of course in figurative language. It is as un- 
natural for gold and silver to be eaten up with 
rust as for the glory of Israel to be as corrupted 
as the glory of other nations corrupts, which may 
be compared to base metals. 

And their rust shall be a testimony 
against you.—Wiesinger, with whom Huther 
agrees, proposes the following interpretation: in 
the consuming of their treasures, to be brought 
about by an outward judgment, they see de- 
picted their own. But the loss of outward 
wealth under the influence of outward corrup- 
tion is by no means evidence of the inward cor- 
ruption of the losers, Oecumenius supposes 
that the rust on their gold and silver shall tes- 
tify against the hardness of their heart, because 
they did not use them in doing good. This is 
correct as far as the reference is doubtless to a 
corruption inherent in their circumstances, but 
it lacks the due appreciation of the figurative 


CHAP. V. 1-6. 129 


ἘΠ ΤΕ τ TS Oe re Ἐπ 


sense: the rusting of your gold and silver, of 
your glory, represented by your leading men 
(see Is. i. 22, 23), shall be a token that the na- 
tion is corrupted in its rich men in general. 
And this was actually the case. The leading 
men who in the spiritual life ought to have shone 
like burnished silver and gold were rusted in le- 
galism and dragged the majority of the self- 
righteous people into their own corruption. 

And shall consume your flesh.—The Plu- 
ral σάρκες is differently explained. The word 
stands simply for ὑμᾶς (Baumgarten), it denotes 
their well-fed bodies (Augusti), the fleshy parts 
of the body as contrasted with the bones (Huther 
who refers to 2 Kings ix. 36; and particularly 
to Mich. iii. 2,3). But these passages contain 
no allusion to a consuming fire; fire consumes 
bones as well as flesh. We therefore assume 
that the term flesh is here used in a bad sense as 
in Gen. vi. 3; Jer. xvii. 5 and Jno. iii. 6, and 
that the Plural describes the life of the rich as 
exhibited in the carnalities or externals of reli- 
gious, civil or individual life, in which they 
take delight. That consuming rust of the de- 
cayed, defunct and deadly legalism beginning at 
the gold and silver with which they decorate 
themselves, eats through the flesh of their cus- 
toms, ceremonies and earthly possessions to the 
very destruction of their life. 
has the consuming energy of fire (Ps. xxi. 
Is. x. 16, 17). The rotten fixity, deseribed as 
rust, in its last stage transforms itself into the 
fire of a revolutionary movement, into a fanatical, 
consuming conflagration of rebellion (see Rey. xix. 
20), or in brief: absolutism becomes reyolu- 
tion. It is the consummated national self-dissolu- 
tion, as it fully developed itself in the Jewish 
war and in Jerusalem besieged. The reference 
therefore on the one hand, is neither to con- 
suming grief and want (Erasmus and al.), nor, 
on the other, already to the real, positive judg- 
ments (Calvin, Grotius, Wiesinger, Huther and 
al.). With respect to ὡς πῦρ, Wiesinger, who 
adopts the punctuation of Cod. A and Oecume- 
nius, and follows Grotius and Knapp, connects it 
with ἐθησαυρίσατε: ‘* tanquam ignem opes istas con- 
gessistis, et quidem ipsis extremis temporibus.” 
Wiesinger cites as an analogy θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ 
ὀργήν, Rom. ii. 5, to which Huther rightly objects 
that in the words ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις 
the principal stress rests on ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις. 
This is sufticient; his further remark that the fire 
denotes already positive judgment we consider, 
for the reason already given, to be incorrect, 
but this fire points to positive judgment. ὡς 
also is against Wiesinger’s construction, and so 
does the over bold metaphor: ye have as it were 
gathered fire in gathering your wealth. 

Ye have heaped up treasure.—The verb 
requires no definite specification of the object 
and the supply of ὀργήν (according to Rom. ii. 
δ. Calvin and al.) is superfluous and arbitrary. 
Moreover, the treasure, as Huther remarks, has 
been specified before. 

In the last days.—Not perchance the last 
days, and the last days are neither the last days 
of life, nor the last days before the advent of 
Christ (Huther). James refers to the last days 
before the final national judgment, alluded to in 
y. 1, but not yet described. The gathering of 


99. 


ans 


It is a rust which- 


treasure is done in the anticipation of a long 
happy future; this reprehensible heaping up 
treasure in the last days of their existence, im- 
mediately before the judgment involving not only 
the ruin of their treasure but also of their very 
existence, characterizes moreover their fearful 
want of apprehension (freedom from all misgiv- 
ing and fear, assurance) and mad-like self-delu- 
sion. All their spiritual and worldly treasures 
are useless obstacles in the impending judgment, 
destined to vanish as the means of their self-de- 
lusion in order to make room for a fearful unde- 
ceiving. Thus the indication of positive judg- 
ment draws nearer, but the Apostle first refers 
to their decisive sins. 

Their positive sins resulting from such spiritual 
self-delusion. Their sins against the reapers of the 
harvest in Israel. The unsuspecting assurance of 
their life of indulgence in the very day of their judg- 
ment. The crime of the murder of the Just One. VV. 
4-6. 

Ver. 4. Behold the hire of the labourers. 
—First decisive sin. Huther: ‘Injustice to- 
wards those who work for them;” Wiesinger: 
One case instead of many, a case moreover which 
clearly exposes the crying injustice of those rich 
men as the transgression of the express prohi- 
bition, Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Lev. xix. 13; Mal. 
iii, 5. And this is to be the whole meaning of 
this passage! But in the first place it is incon- 
ceivable that those wandering trafficking Jews 
of the dispersion (ch. iv. 18) should all of a sud- 
den be transformed into large landed proprietors, 
and in the second equally inconceivable that 
James should have occasion to reproach all the 
rich landlords of the dispersion with literally 
holding back the hire of their labourers. Here 
also we must again insist upon the symbolical 
sense of the passage. ‘The first question is to de- 
termine the sense in which the term ‘the har- 
vest of Israel’ is used by the prophets (Is. ix. 
3; Joel iii. 18), by John the Baptist (Matth. iii. 
12), and by our Lord (Jno. iv. 35; Matth. ix. 
38; ef. Rey. xiv. 15, 16).—It denotes the time 
when the theocratic seed of God in Israel has 
become ripe unto harvest; on the one hand unto 
the harvest of judgment, on the other unto the 
harvest of salvation. The latter idea predomi- 
nates here. The harvest of Israel was the ri- 
pened spirit-produce of the Old Testament, as 
manifested in the work of Christ; in the reapers 
we may aptly see the Apostles (according to Jno. 
iv. 85), and the first Christians in general. From 
them the rich in Israel kept back the hire in 
that they rejected their testimony in unbelief. And 
thus the voices of those reapers cried into the 
ears of the Lord of hosts, ἡ. 6., abandoning the 
figure: their sin against them cried out to God, 
even to God, the Lord of those hosts which were 
already on the point of approaching in order to 
execute the judgment of God on Israel.—The la- 
bourers, ἐργάται, see 1 Tim. v. 18. ἀμᾷν is ἅπαξ 
acy. in N. T. The expression imports moreover 
that Israel’s whole harvest of blessing has been 
brought home by these labourers into the Chris- 
tian Church and that there is no other harvest 
besides it. 

Which hath been kept back.— We con- 
strue with Huther “the hire which hath been 
kept back, crieth out from you,” ag’ ὑμῶν, as we 


130 


read in Gen. iy. 10. ‘*the voice of thy brother’s 
blood crieth unto me from the ground,” because 
thus the injustice crying out for vengeance is 
laid to the charge of the evil-doers not to that 
of the labourers; the common construction 
“which hath been kept back by you”’ seems to 
be less opposed by taking ἀπό in the sense of 
ὑπό, than by the consideration that κράζει denotes 
a crying out for vengeance. Hence the connec- 
tion is not: ‘‘the hire of the mowers crieth out 
and this crying has come to the ears of God” 
(Theile), but the crying out of the hire that has 
been kept back (Gen. xviii. 20; xix. 13) on the 
one hand, is completed on the other by the βοαί 
of the reapers or the gatherers of the harvest, 
first as cries of complaint and cries for help (see 
Heb. v. 7; Acts iv. 24 ete.; ch. xii. 5), and lastly 
also as cries for righteous recompense (Rey. vi. 
10, 11). And these, even more than the former 
crying have entered into the ears of the Lord of 
hosts; which would yield this sense: not only 
the unbelief of the unbelieving Jews but also the 
distress of the believing Christians induce the 
Lord of hosts to send forth His hosts unto judg- 
ment: as indeed the destruction of Jerusalem 
was not only a visitation of judgment on Juda- 
ism but also a visitation of salvation on the 
Christian Church. The crying out of Christian 
blood for mercy to enemies reaches also its limit 
in the induration of unbelievers; moreover we 
should distinguish the reapers themselves from 
their foai, here made objective. The term 
“Lord of hosts” hardly renders prominent the 
power of God, as that of Lord of the heavenly 
hosts only (Wiesinger, Huther); He is also Lord 
of the earthly hosts according to the prophets 
(Is. vi. 3; xviii. 7; xxiv. 21; Amos ix. 4, 5), 
and also according to Christ (Matth. xxii. 7). 
[Bede suggests the following reason ‘“‘Dominum 
exercituum appellat, ad terrorem eorum, qui pauperes 
putant nullum habere tutorem.” This is the only 
passage in the New Testament where the term 
‘Lord of hosts’ is used in direct discourse. 
Rom. ix. 29 is a quotation.—M. ]. 

, Second sin. νυ. 5. Ye have lived high on 
earth.—rpu¢a is ἅπαξ Acy. in the N. T. It com- 
prehends the ideas: to live softly, voluptuously, 
gloriously and also extravagantly. In LXX. 
(Neh. ix. 25 and Is. xvi. 11) the fundamental 
idea is ‘‘to take delight in something to revel.” 
σπαταλᾷν denotes living lewdly, luxuriously, es- 
pecially in eating and drinking; but in LXX. 
(Ezek. xvi. 49 and Amos vi. 4) the idea of idle 
indulgence is decidedly predominant, probably 
also in 1 Tim. vy. 6. Hence the two words would 
express not the definite antithesis delicize et ex- 
guisita voluptas and luxuria atque prodigalitas 
(Hottinger), but that of positive sumptuousness in 
pleasure and sensuality and of negative sumptu- 
ousness in effeminate, careless indolence. We 
might therefore translate ‘‘Ye have had your 
delight and have settled down on earth,” or “ye 
have become worldly and effeminate,” or ‘ye 
have bragged and made a show.” The opposite 
order occurs in Luke xvi. 19: the daily wearing 
of holiday-apparel denotes the idler, the sump- 
tuous living, revelry. Huther strikingly points 
out the contrast of this sumptuous mode of life 
and the toilsome life of the labourers, also the 
contrast of such revelling on earth and the com- 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


me 
plaint which is made to the Lord in heaven. 
But we must not overlook in this revelling on 
earth the thought, that the earth, the earthly, 
figuratively taken, was the foundation in which 
their revelling struck root, and that the day of 
slaughter is the principal antithesis of revelling. 

And fattened your hearts.—7pégevv in the 
opinion of several commentators denotes /atten- 
ing, for the evident design of this clause is to 
show that the rich regarded and nourished their 
heart as an animal existence. Hence Huther is 
wrong in his correction of Luther, ‘to pasture 
your hearts,” better: ‘‘to satiate.’’ Luther’s ren- 
dering is excellent and we should have retained 
it but for the necessity of holding fast to the 
other meaning that fattening the heart is at the 
same time indurating the heart (καρδία πεπωρω- 
μένη). The heart, however, is not a paraphrastic 
description of the body or individuality but de- 
notes inward life, the kernel of spiritual life 
(Acts xiv. 17). Wiesinger asserts that καρδία 
involves per se the idea of passionate fondness of 
enjoyment, but Luke xxi. 34 is the last passage 
which makes good his assertion. 

In the day of slaughter.—On the omission 
of ως see Appar. Crit. Nor must ἐν be changed into 
εἰς. The rendering ‘as on a day of slaughter” 
(Luther, Wolf, Augusti) is consequently a double 
weakening of the thought. The comment of 
Calvin, Grotius, Bengel ete., that the day of 
slaughter is the day of sacrifice, when the 
slaughter of the victims is followed by banquet- 
ing, is altogether outside of the connection with 
the judgment. Calvin: ** Quia solebant in sacri- 
Jjictis solemnibus liberalius vesci, quam pro quotidiano 
more. Dicit ergo divites tota vita continuare festum.” 
Huther rightly observes that the term in ques- 
tion is never used in this sense. De Wette sees 
in it a comparison to beasts, which on the very 
day of slaughter eat in unconcern. MHuther 
thinks this comparison inappropriate, since 
beasts do not eat more greedily on the day of 
slaughter than at any other time. But this refu- 
tation rests on a misunderstanding. Beasts* 
always eat greedily; their eating on the day of 
slaughter may therefore be used as a figure of 
the inordinate feasting of the obdurate on the 
very day of judgment. The analogy of 2 Pet. ii. 
12 only tends to strengthen the appropriateness 
of this construction. The thought is further 
intensified by the consideration that while beasts 
are led to pasture and fattened for the day of 
slaughter, these men laid themselves voluntarily 
out for feasting in the very day of slaughter. 
But we may suppose that this point of compari- 
son must not be dissociated from the general and 
more lofty meaning of ἡμέρα σφαγῆς, viz. that of a 
day of judgment (Jer. xii. 3; xxv. 34). In the 
last passage also the ideas “ἀν of judgment” 
and ‘day of slaughter” are taken together in a 
literal sense, so also in Is. liii. 7; Rev. xix. 17, 
18. But the day on which began Israel’s day of 
judgment which is developing itself into a day 
of slaughter, was the day of Christ’s crucifixion 


* In German “‘ Fressen”’ and “‘ Saufen”’ are properly used 
to denote the eating and drinking of beasts, ἡ, e. inordinate, 
greedy eating and drinking. Applied to human beings the 
terms are offensive and insulting, although the vulgar are 
apt to indulge in these choice terms with reference to them- 
selyes.—M. 


CHAP. V. 1-6. 


131 


which connected with the day of the destruction 
of Jerusalem becomes in a symbolical sense one 
day of visitation. The Aorists here, therefore, 
are not used to indicate that the conduct of the 
rich is to be viewed from the future day of judg- 
ment at the second coming of Christ (Huther), 
but because their carnal arrogance and uncon- 
cern in the deyilish revelling of their hearts 
culminated just on the judgment-day of Israel. 
Since then their day of slaughter is in process 
of development. Just as they had therefore 
collected together the treasures of legal right- 
eousness in the last days, while the old time was 
on the wane, so they had reached the climax of 
their self-indulgent worldliness on the last day, 
the day of judgment.—This leads to their third 
and greatest sin. 

Ver. 6. Ye have condemned, ye have 
killed the Just.—The fact of modern commen- 
tators disputing the exposition of Oecumenius, 
Bede and Grotius that the Just signifies Christ, 
proves how far they have wandered from the 
text in the treatment of this Epistle. Only think 
of James, the witness of Christ, at the end of his 
course calling out to the obdurate of all the people 
of Israel: Ye have condemned and killed the Just 
and they not to have understood him to refer to 
the rejection and crucifixion of Christ! But to 
what or to whom else did they think he was 
alluding? Gebser and Huther [also Alford—M. ] 
take δίκαιον collectively for τοὺς δικαίους ; 1. 6. 
oppressed, suffering Christians, and Huther says: 
“The ground of the persecution is implied in the 
word δίκαιον itself; the Singular should be taken 
collectively, the idea absolutely” (similarly 
Theile). But then surely Christ ought to be 
considered as standing at the head of these slain 
ones. Wiesinger (and de Wette) refers the term 
to continued persecution ad mortem usque and 
adds that all reference to Christ is so manifestly 
against the whole context of the passage, that 
refutation is altogether unnecessary. On the 
contrary, proof is almost unnecessary. Wiesin- 
ger objects first, that the Epistle is addressed to 
the dispersion. But at the Passover, when 
Christ was crucified, the dispersion also was 
represented at Jerusalem, and symbolically all 
Israel was already dispersed. The most impor- 
tant objection is the Present οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν. 
This Present is certainly difficult. But is it more 
convenient to affirm concerning the collectively 
just man, that he had been killed by those rich 
and that he was still living than to affirm as 
much concerning Christ? The Vulgate probably 
alludes to Christ in rendering ‘‘non restitit ;” so 
Luther, ‘“‘he hath not resisted you.” But the 
Present forbids such a rendering. But also the 
common explanation: ‘‘Ye have killed the Just, 
he does not resist you”’ gives a thought which is 
not clear, at least not very distinct. It would 
perhaps be easier to suppose that the readers of 
the Epistle understood James to say: ‘Christ 
does not resist you in His members, He still en- 
dures willingly all persecutions in His suffer- 
ings.” But would this thought be a fitting con- 
clusion of the great denunciation of those obdu- 
rate people? Nor is it the idea ‘the just do 
not resist you.”” We understand therefore Bent- 
ley’s conjecture of reading ὁ κύριος instead of οὐκ 
(see Ch. iv. 6; 1 Pet. v. 5; Prov. iii. 34); still 


more the explanation of Benson to take the 
clause interrogatively. Giving to ἀντιτάσσεσθαι 
the fullest Middle sense, the question would read 
thus: ‘*Does He not bring up against you His 
army. (as the executor of the punitive justice of 
the Lord of hosts)?” ar ‘does He not rise 
against you in combat?” Ait least it is easy to 
understand that with a predominantly ascetic 
turn of mind such a question might have been 
asked. But considering the importance of the 
matter, the interrogative form ought to be more 
distinctly marked: does he not already march 
against you, march against you in the tempest 
of war? Besides such an explanation might 
easily obscure the thought of the continuous 
suffering which Christ endures in His people. 
Hence one might light on the idea of rebellion, 
as we have it in Rom. xiii. 2. He does not rebel 
against you, ἡ. 6. you are the rebels. But this 
again is not sufficiently clear. We read there- 
fore: He stands no longer in your way, He does not 
stop you (in the way of death); He suffers you 
to fill up your measure. See Matth. xxiii. 32~ 
38. And this dark, pregnant sentence is the 
concentration of the announcement that the judg- 
ment impending on them, is inevitable. [The 
clause ““οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν" seems to be ironi- 
cal: He lets you alone (Hos. iv. 17).—James was 
called by his contemporaries ‘‘the Just”? and 
this reference to Jesus as ‘“‘the Just One” is a 
touching illustration of his character, for a deli- 
neation of which the reader is referred to the 
Introduction.—M. ]. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Both the Gospel and James are altogether 
free from any and every Ebionite one-sidedness 
that wealth, as such, is sinful and poverty, as 
such, meritorious. James allows the possession 
and use of earthly riches, but—in majorem Dei 
gloriam. While the rich are thus more privileged 
than others, they are also under doubly great 
obligations; but if they persistently acquit them- 
selves of their discharge and use their riches 
only for the attainment of selfish ends which 
conflict with the law of love, then they are in all 
justice and reason liable to a vx vobis divitibus 
ef. Luke vi. 24; Matth. vi. 19=21.— 

2. Earthly wealth is not an absolute but a 
relative obstacle to entering the kingdom of 
God; ef. Mark x. 23-25.—The history of many 
rich men, e. g. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arima- 
thea shows that this obstacle may be overcome. 
But this is impossible where covetousness reigns 
supreme and adopts every means of preserving 
or increasing earthly possessions. Here applies 
the Apostolic warning, 1 Tim. vi. 17-19,—com- 
pare also Plutarch, de cupiditate divitiarum, and 
the saying of Seneca, de benef. 11. ο. 27, ‘‘conci- 
tatior est avaritia in magnarum opum congestus,” 
also Sallust, zx Catil. c. x. 4.—A life of luxurious 
indulgence as the concomitant of wealth and 
dependence on that wealth coupled with unfeel- 
ing contempt of one’s brother, according to the 
teaching of Christ Himself, deserves the judg- 
ment Luke xvi. 25. And the history of the 
destruction of Jerusalem as well as innumerable 
incidents taken from the history of the kingdom 
of God confirm the fact that such rich men are 


152 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


Se ee ee ———————  οὕἰὡὔ τσ στ παπσπσσννσα 


not rarely visited already here below with 
earthly calamity and outward distress apart from 
that judgment for eternity. 

8. The rejection of the Messiah, to which 
James clearly alludes (v. 6), as the work of the 
prominent Jews, as thg murder of the Innocent 
and the Just was not only a heinous crime per se 
(ef. Acts iii. 13-15), but also the first of a series 
of crimes enacted on the members of the Body, 
after they had first laid hands on the Head, which 
terminated at last in the horrors of the Jewish 
civil war and were punished with the fall of the 
city and the destruction of the temple. 

4. Christianity imposes upon all men, blessed 


with earthly goods, the duty to ascertain and, if 


practicable, to satisfy the wants of their subor- 
dinates and servants and to consider themselves 
not as the lords but as the stewards of the capital 
confided to them, Luke xvi. 2; cf. Col. iv. 1.— 
Those who neglect this duty and oppress the poor 
have even pursuant to the tenor of the Old Tes- 
tament to bear the dreadful punishment of God. 
See 6. g. Ps. xxxvii.; Proy. xiv. 31; Eccl. v.—vii. 

5. “Indulgence as it were fattens men for the 
punishment of hell—a figure taken from the 
sacrificial victims—i. e. ripens them so much the 
more for torments.”? Heubner on v. 5. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Wealth not an absolute superiority, poverty 
not an absolute evil—Those who have most pos- 
sessions on earth, have also to lose most in times 
of common suffering and tribulation.—-Earthly 
riches from the nature of the case, are as tran- 
sitory as their owners.—The true Christian an 
omnia sua secum portans.—The history of the rich 
fool is that of many (Luke xii. 16-20).—The 
degree to which the rich may be poor and the 
poor rich.—God’s rich harvest-blessing changed 
into a curse through man’s selfishness.—It is 
possible to do evil, but not to do it unpunished. 
—God is higher than the highest that oppress 
the poor, Eccl. v. 8.—The worldling’s short joy 
followed by long pain.—The murder of the Just 
One the most horrid manifestation of outward 
selfishness.—The fact that evil is suffered here on 
earth no guarantee that it will not be punished 
(vv. 4-6).—Threefold sin of the rich; 1, oppres- 
sion of the poor (v. 4), 2, selfish indulgence (v. 
5), ὃ, murder of the Just One (v. 6).—How the 
crime of the rejection of Christ is still continued 
in various ways by many among the rich of this 
world.—The Christian has great cause to offer 
the prayer of Agur, Proy. xxx. 7-9.—The love of 
money the root of all evil (1 Tim. vi. 10) and of 
idolatry, Col. iii. 5.— 

Starke: Cramer:—lIf you get riches, set not 
your heart on them, Ps. lxii. 11.—A man may be 
very rich and yet be very wicked, Ps. xxiii. 12. 

AvaustinE:— Magna pietas! thesaurizat pater 
filiis ; immo magna vanitas! thesaurizat moriturus 
morituris.—Many who do not leave even children 
and know not whose shall be their riches (Luke xii. 
20) are so possessed of avarice, that they loathe 
parting even with a penny. O, unhappy rich! 

QuesneL:—Thus the rich ground their hope 
on things which decay and perish. Foolish 
building! Matth. vii. 26, 27. 

Lanau Opv.:—If there were many pious rich 


—(v. 4). 
many of our contemporaries, and many a proud 
palace ought to have the appropriate inscriptign. 
—‘Woe unto him that buildeth his house by un- 
righteousness and his chambers by wrong.’’— 


men, who did husband their wealth as the stew- 
ards of God, the need of the poor would be 
greatly lessened, Luke viii. 2, 3; xxii. 35. 

Hepincer:—There are many who gather 
along with their gold a treasure of the wrath 
and vengeance of God, Rom. ii. 5.—To defraud 
labourers of their hire they have earned is a sin 
that crieth out to heaven and is sure to be fol- 
lowed by the curse and most fearful vengeance 
of God, 1 Thess. iv. 6.—The name of God ‘‘the 
Lord of hosts” is as terrible to the ungodly as 
it is consoling to the godly, Ps. xlvi. 11, 12.— 
Robbing the poor of their well-earned wages is 
murder, Ex. i. 13, 14. 

Stier: (v. 6):—-James refers primarily to the 
Lord, the Just One (Acts vii. 52) and he himself 
bore the honourable epithet ‘“‘the Just,” he here 
(implicite) humbly declines that epithet. Yet 
again—(here the inspiration of the Spirit affects 
the author of the Epistle so perceptibly and 
becomes here so remarkably prophetical that 
again)—he is unconsciously prophesying of him- 
self. An author, who lived soon after the Apos- 
tles (Hegesippus), gives us a full account, which 
is doubtless correct in its main features, of the 


martyrdom of James the Just, the Lord’s bro- 


ther, shortly before the siege of Jerusalem. See 
Introd, p.9 etc.; [also Excursus p. 18, etc.—M. ]. 
Surely the words of James apply to 


The treatment which poor labourers experience 
at the hands of our money-aristocrats and mer- 
chant princes, who in their avarice are just what 
those names import and nothing more, who re- 
fuse to know the Lord God and our Saviour, cries 
everywhere loud enough in owr ears,.and is it 
likely that this crying has not also entered into 
the ears of the Lord of hosts? Of Him, who 
commanded even Moses to say in the law: 
«Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant, that 
is poor and needy—lest he cry against thee unto 
the Lord, and it be sin unto thee.”’ Deut. xxiv. 
14, 15.— 

JaKoBI:—It is not the measure of wealth, but 
the measure of sin, which tells; everything de- 
pends upon the manner how earthly riches, be 
they great or small, have been acquired and are 
enjoyed; and hence those whom we can by no 
means call wealthy, may be just as ungodly and 
unrighteous, just as indulgent and voluptuous as 
those who are really rich. Our text is therefore 
addressed to all that are earthly-minded, to all 
worldly people that do not order their lives ac- 
cording to the rule ‘‘to have, as though they had, 
and to buy, as though they possessed not.” 1 
Cor. vii. 29 ete. 

NEANDER:—James describes wealth in three 
different respects, viz. in garnered fruits of the 
field, in apparel, in gold and silver. All these, 
he says, the rich heap up without profit. Their 
treasures in gold and silver, for want of use, are 
eaten up with rust and will testify against them 
in judgment, finding them guilty because they 
suffered to perish for want of use that which 
they ought to have employed for the benefit of 
others. The rust consumes their own flesh, re- 
minding them of their own perishableness and 


CHAP. V. 7-20. 


of the punishment that awaits them in the judg- 
ment, because instead of gathering durable 
riches, they have heaped up the fire of Divine 
punishment in treasures destined to be eaten up 
with rust. 

ViepEeBANpT:—A Christian, as has been 
strikingly said, may own worldly possessions 
like Abraham, David and many more, for a beg- 
gar’s staff will no more take us to heaven than a 
golden chain or velvet fur will take us to hell. 
Christ says not; ‘‘Ye cannot have God and 
mammon,”’ but ‘‘Ye cannot serve God and mam- 
mon.” Riches, says Augustine, are gifts of God 
and therefore good in themselves. Lest men 
decry them as evil, they are also accorded to the 
good, lest they be valued as the best goods, they 
are also given to the evil; Holy Scripture there- 
fore only forbids men to be proud of and to 
ground their hopes on uncertain riches. But 
although riches and righteousness are compati- 
ble with one other, yet those who are distin- 
guished by their worldly possessions, should 
cherish in their souls a sacred fear of them.— 
Riches are snares [German rhyme ‘‘Schdtze sind 
Netze.””—M.].—A man lights hell-fire with his 
own hands if he suffers the fire of lusts to burn 
in his heart.—Dr. Sauvergne, a physician, nar- 
rates the case of a miser, who had his money 
brought to his dying bed-and expired with the 
words ‘‘more gold, more gold!” 

Lisco:—The dangers of wealth.—Of twofold 
riches (earthly and heavenly ).— 

PoruBszKY:—The woe uttered over the rich. 
1, what it means; 2, its application to our time, 
8, when it will cease. 

[WorpswortH: y. 2.—Although they may 
still glitter brightly in your eyes, and may daz- 
zle men by their brilliance when ye walk the 
streets, or sit in the htgh places of this world; 
yet they are in fact already cankered. They are 
loathsome in G‘od’s sight. The Divine anger has 
breathed on them and blighted them; they are 
already withered and blasted, as being doomed 


133 


to speedy destruction; for ye lived delicately on 
the earth (v. 5), and have not laid up treasure in 
heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth cor- 
rupt (Matth. vi. 20). 

Even while shining in your coffers, they are, 
in God’s eye, sullied and corroded, and they will 
not profit you in the day of trial, but be con- 
sumed ‘by His indignation: and the rust they 
have contracted by lying idle as κτήματα, and 
not being used as χρήματα, will be a witness 
against you at the Great Day; and will pass 
from them by a plague-like contagion and devour 
your flesh as fire. 

v. 5.—A striking contrast. Ye feasted jovially 
in a day of sacrifice, when abundance of flesh 
of the sacrificed animals is on the table at the 
sacrificial banquet. Ye ought to have ruled the 
people gently and mildly; but ye “have fed 
yourselves and not the flock,” ye nowrished your 
own hearts and not those of your people; ye'‘have 
sacrificed and devoured them like sheep or calves 
of the stall fatted for the pampering of your own 
appetites. Cf. Ezek. xxxiv. 1-10. Cyril in Caten. 

. 33. 
᾿ Ye did this at the very time when ye your- 
selves were like victims appointed to be sacri- 
ficed in the day of the Lord’s vengeance, which 
is often compared by Hebrew prophets to a sac- 
rifice, see below, Rev. xix. 17. Cf. Oecumenius 
and Theophylact here. 

This was signally verified by the event. The 
Jews from all parts of the world came together 
to the sacrifice of the Passover A. D. 70, and they 
themselves were then slain as victims to God’s of- 
fended justice, especially in the Temple; particu- 
larly was this true of the rich, as recorded by 
Josephus, B. J. vi. passim.—Their wealth ex- 
cited the cupidity and provoked the fury of 
the factious zealots against them, and they fell 
victims in a day of slaughter to their own 
love of mammon; what was left of their sub- 
stance was consumed by the flames, which burnt 
the city.—Joseph. B. J. VII. 29, 82, 37.—M.]. 


X. FINAL THEME 
FURTHER ADDRESS TO THE BRETHREN. 


AND CONCLUSION. 
FINAL THEME: EXHORTATION TO ENDU- 


RANCE IN LONG-SUFFERING PATIENCE UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD.—EN- 


COURAGEMENT THERETO. 


CONDITION THEREOF. 


FINAL PROMISE. 


CHAPTER V. 7-20. 


7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the hus- 
bandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, 


8 until he receive the early! and latter rain. 
9 for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. 
lest ye be condemned :* behold, the® judge 


Be ye also patient ;? establish your hearts: 
Grudge not one against another, brethren, 
standeth before the door. Take, my® bre- 


thren,’ the prophets, who have spoken in’ the name of the Lord, for an example of 


suffering affliction,® and of patience. 


Behold, we count them happy which endure.?? 


Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen" the end of the Lord; that the 


Lord” is very pitiful, and of tender 
swear not, neither by heaven, 


mercy. But above all things,” my brethren, 
neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but 
let'* your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. 


Is any 


134 THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


ce 


14 among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him simg psalms. Is any sick 


15 
16 
17 


among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, 
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:'® And the prayer of faith shall save 
the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall 
be forgiven him. Confess" your faults one to another, and pray ” one for another, 
that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth 
much, Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed ear- 
nestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three 
years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain,” and the 
earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren,” if any of you do err from the truth,” and 
one convert him; Let him know” that he which converteth the sinner from the error 
of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.® 


[ 
Verse 8. [2 Cod. Sin. L. al. insert οὖν after μακροθυμήσατε.--Μ. 


] 
Verse 9. 3 A. B. Lachm. Tischend. place ἀδελφοί before ἀλλήλων. [Cod. Sin. κατὰ ἀλλήλω ν.--Μ| 


Verse 10. 67Rec. K. L.al.insert μον before ἀδελφοί, omit A. B—Rec. has τῆς κακοπαθείας Ὀεΐοτο ἀδελφοί 


(Take, my brethren, ... . of affliction and patience - - - «» who spoke in....—M. 
Verse 11. 10 Lachmann for ὑπυμένοντας reads ὑπομείναντας A. B. Vulg.al. Cod Sin. ὑπομίναντας. 
1 ἴδετε A. B. G.al. Tischend. [Alford], through an exegetical mistake appears to haye been changed into 
εἴδετε Rec. B al. and adopted by Lachmann. 
12 ὁ κύριος omit α΄. K. al. Tischendorf; A. B. insert it, but B omits the Article. This ὃ κύριος Was 
probably omitted, because it was held to be superfluous alter the preceding κυρίον (Hnther). 
Lange: Behold, we count happy the sufferers who did endure.—Ye have heard of the endurance of Job 
and look at the end [the consummation] of the Lord. For very compassionate is the Lord and mer- 
ciful. 
[Behold, we count happy them that endure .. . . See also the end of the Lord [of His dealings with him]; 
because the Lord is very pitiful and merciful——M.} 
Verse 12. [13 Cod. Sin. has πάντων ot v.—M.} 
14 Cod. Sin. reads ἤτω δὲ ὁ λόγος for ἤτω δὲ Rec.—M.] 
15 Luther’s rendering “into hypocrisy” arose from the less authentic reading ε is ὑπόκρισιν Rec. G. 
K.al. But A. B. Vulg. al. fix the reading ὑπὸ κρίσιν. 
Lange: But above all things, my brethren, swear (conspire) not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth 


.... -But let your (Sinait.: ὃ λόγο ς) yea bea yea, and your nay a nay, that ye fall not under judg- 
ment. 


[.... that ye fall not under judgment.—M. } 
Verse 13. Lange: Does affliction happen to any among you? ...., is any cheerful, let him sing praise. 


{Is any among you in affliction? .... Is any cheerful? ....—.M] 
Verse 14. [16 Insert τοῦ before κυρίον Rec. K. L. omits B, which also omits kuptov.—M.] 
Lange:.... let him call to himself.... 


[.... let him callfor....—M.] 
Verse 15, Lange: And the prayer of faith shall help the sick... . it shall be forgiven him, 
[.... save (heal) the sick man;....M.] 
Verse 16. 17 A. B. K. [Cod. Sin.—M.] Vulg. al. Lachmann [Alford] insert ὁ ὗν, [Rec. omits it—M.] 
8 τὰς ἁμαρτίας A. B. (Cod. Sin—M.] al. Lachmann; τὰ παραπτώματα G. K. al. Tischendorf 
[Alford.—M.] 
19 A.B. προσεύχεσθε; (Rec. evxeo ε.--Μ.} 
Lange: Confess, therefore, your sins to one another, and pray for one another.... The prayer of a 
righteous man, inwardly effectual [efficiency effected] availeth much. 


[.... therefore your transgressions one toanother.... The inwardly effectual prayer of a righteous man 
is very efficacious.—M. | 
Verse 17. PAN IO So ates of like passions with us, and he prayed a prayer that it should not rain, and it did not rain 


in the land for.... 
[ .... of sike passions with us, and he prayed with prayer that it might not rain, and it rained not on the 
earth for....-—-M. 
Verse 18. [30 ἔδωκεν τὸν ὑετόν Cod. Sin. A. al.—M.] 
Verse 19. 21 Rec. G. Tischend. omit pov, A. B. K. [Cod. Sin.—M.] insert it; so Lachmann [Alford.—M.] 
22 Cod. Sin. inserts τῆς ὁδοῦ before τῆς ἀληθείας.--Μ.] 
Lange: My brethren, if any among you should have strayed from the truth, [Sinait.: from the way of 
the truth] and one should convert him... - 
{.... be led astray from the truth and one turn him back.—M.] 
Verse 20. [28 γινωσκέτω Rec. A. Κα. L. Vulg. aly γινώσκετε B. Alford.—M.] 
39: Ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ. A.(Cod. Sin—M.] Vulg. al. Lachmann, [A inserts τή v—M.]; Rec. B. G. K. al. read 
υχῆ ν. 
Lange: Let him know... « cover a multitude of sins. 
[Know ye, that he who turneth a sinner from the error of his way... « —M.) 
2% The subscriptions: of James, Epistle of James; Epistle of St. James. 


[laxwfhov B; laxwBov extratory, A; tedog tov αγιου 
αποστολου laxwfov exiatohy χαθολιχὴ Z.—M.] 


CHAP. V. 7-20. 


135 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Analysis :—Further address to the brethren. 
Final theme, viz: exhortation to endurance in 
long-suffering patience unto the coming of the 
Lord, vv. 7-9. Encouragement thereto: Examples 

-of patient suffering, vv. 10, 11.— Conditions 
thereof: Shunning of seditious movements. A 
hallowed disposition. The healing of their sick- 
nesses. Liberation of the conscience by means 
of confession of sins. Exhortation to interces- 
sion. The example of Elias, vv. 12-18.—Conclu- 
sion replete with promise, vv. 19, 20. 

Further address to the brethren. Final theme: 


viz. exhortation to endurance inlong-suffering patience |. 


unto the coming of the Lord, vv. 7, 8. 

Ver. 7. Be patient therefore, brethren.— 
ἀδελφοί is the turning-point in the Apostle’s ad- 
dress. He now turns primarily to the Christian 
section of his readers without excluding however 
the further design of the address for all Jews 
capable of conversion in contrast to the afore- 
mentioned incorrigible πλούσιοι. μακροθυμεῖν li- 
terally to have great courage, to be magnanimous, 
branches out into the ideas to be long-suffering or 
forbearing towards the erring, applicable both to 
Divine and human long-suffering, and to be pa- 
tient in the endurance of suffering, but also with 
the lateral idea of patiently hoping for endurance 
under apparent danger, here under the experience 
of worldly and human wrong, Heb. νἱ. 12. Hence 
μακροθυμία is distinguished from ὑπομονῇ in Col. 
1. 11. And here also the term is obviously chosen 
instead of ὑπομένειν ch. i. 12, because the Apostle 
desires to lay stress on the endurance of the 
Jewish-Christian under the wrongs of the old 
situation of the world, by which the Judaists 
suffered themselves to be drifted into revolution. 

Unto the coming of the Lord.—The Lord 
is Christ, as in ch, ii. 1, and the παρουσία denotes 
His eschatological advent according to the entire 
evangelical and apostolical system of doctrine 
(consequently not the coming of God unto judg- 
ment distinct and separate from the advent of 
Christ, as held by Augusti, Theile, de Wette). 
But this involves no reason for identifying this 

παρουσία with the judgments announced in vy. 1. 

nor must we, on the other hand, limit the coming 
of Christ to the last and concluding event of His 
epiphany. The coming of Christ is the epiphany 
(manifestation) of Christ with all its antecedent 
interpositions, be they universal or individual, 
the greatest of which is the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, as the type of all subsequent comings. 

Behold the husbandman waiteth.—Cf. 
ch. iii. 18; Sir. vi. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 6. 

For the precious fruit of the earth.— 
Which is well worth waiting for. In this the 
husbandman is a symbol for believers, as also in 
that he confides the seed to the earth, to invisi- 
bleness, to seeming death and the grave. Jno. 
xii. 24,— i 

Being patient over it.—waxpofuueiv pro- 
bably denotes here his persevering hope of the 
seemingly buried seed. It is the preciousness of 
the fruit (which, although invisible, he sees in 
expectation), that gives him long-enduring, faith- 
like courage. He calculates on it. [ἐπί is very 
graphic; it depicts him, as it were, sitting over 


it in the confident expectation of its appearing. 
—M. ]. 

om it shall have received.—That is, 
the fruit in its seed, not the husbandman (Morus). 

The early and the latter rain.—That is 
with reference to the climate of Palestine: the 
autumnal rain before sowing, the spring rain 
before harvest, Deut. xi. 14, 2; Jer. v. 24, ete. 
See Winer, R. W. B. Article ‘‘ Witterung.” [The 


early rain πρώϊμος FF ΓΙ ΟῚ began to fall 


about the middle of October, became more contin- 
uous in November and December and turned into 
snow in January and February. The latter rain 


ὄψιμος, ΦΊ fellin March and lasted to about 


the middle of April. Thunder-gusts were not 
uncommon from January to March.—The singu- 
lar exposition of the early and the latter rain 
given by Oecumenius may prove suggestive: 
πρώϊμος ὑετός, ἡ ἐν νεότητι μετὰ δακρύων μετάνοια. 
ὄψιμος, ἡ ἐν τῇ γήρᾳ.---Μ.]. 

Ver. 8. Be ye also patient.—As is the 
husbandman. It is assumed that the seed has 
been sown among them. Their patience, indeed, 
is sorely tried, hence: 

Establish your hearts.—1 Thess. iii. 13; 
1 Pet. v. 10. It is here understood that this 
must be done by seeking refuge in prayer to the 
Lord, who giveth strength, as has been repeat- 
edly pointed out, ch. i. 5, 6 ete. 

Because the coming of the Lord is nigh. 
—Literally: it has already drawn nigh in its 
coming nigh. It is nota fixed nearness but a 
constant drawing nearer and that, not in the 
sense of a chronological definition, but in the 
sense of a religious expectation and assurance, 
which does not calculate the time and the hour, 
or rather looks at time in the spirit of the Lord 
before whom a thousand years are as one day 
(2 Pet. iii. 8). Im the Apostle’s sense of the 
expression, it could be said and may be said at 
all times: the coming of the Lord is nigh. 

Ver. 9. Murmur not, brethren, against 
one another.—There is no reason why this 
should be limited to the mutual forbearance 
among ‘‘Christians’”’ (Huther). Here again all 
the dissensions among the Jews must be taken 
into consideration. As James had already de- 
nounced their quarrels, so he now feels anxious 
to stop the very sources of these quarrels. 
Huther admits that James refers to a ‘‘ gemitus 
accusatorius’”? (Estius, Calvin), but denies that it 
amounts to a ‘‘provocatio ultionis” (Theile and 
al.). But the second cannot be separated from 
the first; the legalism of the Old Testament, 
moreover, as contrasted with the thorough 
fidelity of the N. IT. intercession, exerted as yet 
a powerful influence over the minds of the Jew- 
ish-Christians and might easily bias them in that 
direction. The believing Jews were peculiarly 
exposed to that temptation by the oppressive 
and irritating treatment they received at the 
hands of the rich. Huther rightly remarks that 
impatience in affliction has the tendency of 
making men irritable. [It is of course difficult 
to determine whether the reference is to Chris- 
tians only or to those who were open to convic- 
tion, or to all whom it might concern. As the 
exhortation states a general moral duty, it is 


136 


perhaps best to giveit the widest possible appli- 
cation. In this sense the note of Hornejus (in 
Huther) will be found useful: ‘*Quos ad mani- 
festas et gravissimas tmproborum injurias fortiter 
ferendas incitarat, eos nune hortatur, ut etiam in 
minoribus illis offensis que inter pios ipsos sxpe sub- 
nascuntur, vel condonandis vel dissimulandis promti 
sint. Contingit enim ut qui hostium et improborum 
maximas sepe contumelias et injurias «quo animo 
tolerant, fratrum tamen offensas multo leniores non 
facile ferant.”’—M. ]. 

That ye be not judged.—According to 
Matth. vii. 1, because murmuring against one 
another is also judging. [The reference is to 
final condemnation.—M. ]. 


Behold, the Judge standeth before the 
doors.—(Matth. xxiv. 83). Before the door. 
The Judge ἡ. 6. Christ. Theile sees here a refer- 
ence to the disposition of the Judge to punish 
the oppressors and to avenge the oppressed; 
Huther, on the other hand, says it is intended to 
caution the suffering against the suspension of 
love and to hold out to them the promise of 
speedy deliverance. Butit is pretty certain that 
the love of justice, purified from every unholy 
admixture, may also expect the just recompense 
of evil, and that the two ideas, therefore, go to- 
gether. Wiesinger’s remark is excellent: ‘Ye 
may with perfect calmness leave the judgment to 
Him and therefore ye ought not to expose your- 
selves to the danger of the judgment.”” Cf. Phil. 
iv. 5. [Seeing Christ will speedily execute 
judgment, do not murmur against one another; 
murmuring against one another is a species of 
judging and condemning, ye are brethren, not 
accusers and judges of one another; invading 
the prerogative of the Judge renders you liable 
to judgment and condemnation. Love, requite 
evil with good and leave the judgment in the 
hands of Christ.—The reader is referred to 
the Introduction for the remarkable incident 
recorded by Hegesippus that the religious 
sects at Jerusalem were wont to ask St. James 
‘“which is the Door of Jesus?” Wordsworth 
says: ‘The words of St. James ‘Behold the 
Judge standeth at the doors’ perhaps became 
current among them. Perhaps those words may 
also have excited the question put in a tone of 
derision, ‘which is the Door of Jesus?’ at what 
Door is He standing? By what Door will He 
come? Show Him to us and we will go out to 
meet Him.—This supposition is confirmed by the 
reply of St. James, ‘why do ye ask me concern- 
ing the Son of Man? He sitteth in heaven, and 
will come in the clouds of heaven.’”—For other 
interpretations of that saying ‘‘Which is the 
Door of Jesus?” see Bp. Pearson on St. Ignatius, 
ad Philadelph. 9, αὐτὸς ὧν θύρα τοῦ πατρὸς, with 
reference to Jno. x. 7-9; Valesius and al. on 
ποῦ. 11. 23; Lardner, Hist. of Apostles, ch. 16; 
Credner, Vinleit. 2, p. 580; Gieseler, Church 
Hist. 231; and Delitzsch on Zp. to the Hebrews, 
Ῥ. 673.—M. ]. 

_ Lncouragement thereto. 
suffering. vv. 10, 11. 

Ver. 10. Take, my brethren, as an ex- 
ample.—iddevywa, example or pattern—apd- 
devyua, representation, related to ὑπογραμμός, 
writing-copy (copy-head) perhaps also attesta- 


Examples of patient 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


Sie ed gee EE aN pe NOS eee ee er ee ne eS AE es 
tion, and τύπος, the original pattern or beginning 
of a thing. 

Of affliction and patience.—xaxordera, 
ἅπαξ λεγ. in N. T. although not exactly—to suffer 
wrong (Hottinger), or—to suffer absolutely, de- 
notes suffering evil or affliction, which easily 
suggests suffering wrong. [But, as Alford re- 
marks, the word is strictly objective and is found 
parallel with ξυμφορά and the like. Cf. ν. 13, 
Mal. i. 12; 2 Mace. ii. 26, 27; and Thucyd. vii. 
77, ἐλπίδα χρὴ ἔχειν, μήδὲ καταμέμψασθαι ὑμᾶς 
ἄγαν αὐτούς, μήτε ταῖς ξυμφοραῖς, μῆτε ταῖς παρὰ 
τὴν ἀξίαν νῦν κακοπαθείαις (spoken by Nicias to the 
suffering Athenian army in Sicily): so Isoer. p. 
127. 6. μηδὲ μικρὰν οἴεσθαι δεῖν ὑπενεγκεῖν κακοπά- 
θειαν.----Ν 1.1. 

The prophets, who spoke in the name 
of the Lord.—Cf. Matth. y. 12. The addition 
characterizes them as servants of the Lord, who 
endured wrong for His sake-—Who spoke.— 
In a pregnant sense as frequently in the prophets. 

In the name of the Lord.—(Lange: ‘in 
virtue of the name of the Lord”). Huther makes 
τῷ---ἐν τῷ, claiming as much for Matth. vii. 22. 
But there the sense is modified and here also 
this peculiar expression has probably to be so 
explained that the name of the Lord, ὦ e. the 
fundamental thought of the revelation of the Old 
Testament, gave impulse to their speaking. [But 
this seems a forced construction and since B. 
and Cod. Sin. actually supply év there is really 
no reason why τῷ should not be taken—év τῷ. --- 
M. ]}. 

Ver. 11. Behold, we count happy.— 
(Matth. vy. 10, 11). This saying is not only a 
subjective judgment of James but a reference to 
the fixed judgment recognized in the theocratic 
congregation and more particularly in the Chris- 
tian Church. On this account also the reading 
τοὺς ὑπομείναντας is preferable to ὑπομένοντας. 
This embraces of course also the prophets just 
referred to (Grotius ete.), yet not them only but 
besides them also the most honoured sufferers. 
Hence we have ‘ye have heard of the patience 
of Job,” Ez. xiv. 14, 20; Tob. ii. 12-15.—Al- 
though his patience was at first shaken by the 
great temptation, it gradually became established 
even unto conquering the temptation. The 
Jewish Christians had heard of him not only by 
means of the lessons which were read in the 
synagogue, but the name of Job was popularly 
honoured among them, 

The end of the Lord.—We have here once 
more James’ uniformly significant τέλος, the im- 
port of which is wholly misunderstood if the 
passage is made to denote with Huther, Wiesinger 
and many others: ‘‘the termination which the 
Lord gave” (of the Lord, Genitive of the causal 
subject). We therefore return confidently to the 
exposition of Augustine, Bede, Wetstein and al. 
“the end of the Lord is the completing of Christ.” 
It is objected that the context does not warrant 
such a construction. But the context speaks in 
the Plural, not in the Singular of those who did 
suffer. The final clause of the verse ‘‘for very 
compassionate is the Lord and merciful,” it is 
supposed, ought to be restricted to the mercy of 
God, which gave so happy a termination to the 
sufferings of Job. But was Job’s restitution, 
according to the idea of the book, merely an act 


CHAP. V. 7-20. 


of mercy? On the other hand the supposition 
that Christ the Lord, pursuant to His compassion, 
entered upon His passion and thus showed the 
endurance of patience, conforms exactly to the 
biblical idea (1 Pet. ii. 21; iv. 1; Heb. ii. 10), 
and this idea is actually prefigured in the book 
of Daniel (ch. iii. 25), Huther, moreover, thinks 
it improbable, that James should have connected 
the example of Christ immediately with that of 
Job. Buthe did thus connect the example of 
Abraham with that of Rahab. There the anti- 
thesis was: Abraham, the father of believing 
Jews, Rahab a degraded Gentile woman; the 
antithesis here is: the great sufferer of the Old 
Testament, the Great Sufferer of the New. This 
abandonment of the ancient interpretation of 
our passage we cannot regard otherwise than as 
a consequence of the disparaging views held 
with respect to this Epistle. Besides James 
could hardly extol to the Jewish Christians the 
glorious gain of patience in suffering without 
adverting also to the example of Christ (cf. 1 
Pet. ii. 21 etc.). This might have struck some 
of his readers as almost amounting to a denial. 
And why does he employ the term τέλος, by 
which he understands principial completion, and 
generally that of the New Testament? Why 
does the verb ἠκούσατε not suffice him and why 
does he in contrast with it, use the Imperative 
idere “look at the completion of the Lord?” 
But the Lord, like Job, went through suffering 
to glory, and that in the highest sense; and He 
was moved thereto by His infinite compassion, 
His love, which is also designed to codperate 
with the patience of Christians. And this idere 
seems to be the culminating point of the Apos- 
tle’s missionary saying addressed to those Jews 
who were as yet unbelieving: ‘the end of the 
Lord, look at it;” while the common exposition: 
«The end, which the Lord gave, see (7. 6. know, 
learn from it) that the Lord is πολύσπλαγχνος 
ete.” (Huther), is not only very flat, but also 
forced.—or very pitiful is the Lord. Rendering 
ὅτι for, appears to Huther unsubstantiated by 
what goes before, but nothing can bé more simple 
than the thought: ‘look at the end of the suffer- 
ings of Christ, for that He suffered need not 
excite astonishment, it is a consequence of His 
pity. πολύσπλαγχνος occurs here only; it is 
formed after ἽΩΙΠ Δ (Wiesinger), the LXX 


use instead πολυέλεος, Paul and Peter εὔσπλαγχνος 
(Eph. iv. 82; 1 Pet. iii. 8). ‘ 

Conditions of this patience. 
movements. A hallowed disposition. The healing 
of their sicknesses. Liberation of the conscience by 
means of confession of sins. Hxhortation to inter- 
cession. Theexample of Elias. vv. 12-18. 

Ver. 12. But before all things, my 
brethren, do not swear (conspire).—We 
cannot admit the view of Kern and Wiesinger 
that the connection of the Epistle breaks off at 
this point or that the dehortation contained in 
this verse has no other connection with what 
goes before than that which arises from the con- 
duct of the readers.* The fundamental idea 
which connects this verse with v. 11 and νυ. 13 
etc., is the allaying of the fanatical excitement 


Shunning of seditious 


* On the attempt of Rauch to prove the non-authenticity 
of the section ch. vy 12-20, see Gebser, p. 395. 


10 


137 


which was constantly growing among the Jews 
and was threatening through the influence of 
the Judaists to deprive the Jewish Christian 
Churches of their Christian composure. The 
history of the banding together of more than 
forty men against the life of St. Paul (Acts xxiii. 
12-21) proves the bias of judaistic zealots to 
enter into conspiracies; subsequently towards 
the outbreak of the Jewish war they were doubt- 
less of more frequent occurrence. We have em- 
ployed in our translation an ambiguous word 
[ Verschworung, of which we have no current 
equivalent in English, ὦ, 6. an ambiguous equiva- 
lent; the German words denotes 1, to bind one- 
self by an oath; 2, to enter into a conspiracy. 


‘Conjuration is the nearest English representa- 


tive of Verschwérung, but the sense of conspiracy 
attached to it, although current in the days of 
Sir Thomas Elyot (+1546), is now obsolete.—M], 
in order to intimate this meaning. To be sure 
we take it textually in the sense that all swear- 
ing accompanied by hypothetical imprecations 
or the giving of a pledge is conspiracy: See 
Comm. on St. Matth. v. 84 ete. Hence James, 
like Christ (Matth. v. 34), defines this swearing 
as swearing by heaven, by the earth, or by any 
other oath (ὅρκος) connected with a hypothetical 
curse. The Greek construction ὀμνύειν with the 
Accusative brings out the unseemly character of 
such swearing by or appeal to a created object 
as a witness or avenger, with greater distinct- 
ness than the Hebrew construction of the same 
verb with ἐν. Oecumenius, de Wette, Neander, 
and al. understand the prohibition to apply to 
swearing in general, as in Matth. ν. 38 with 
reference to or for the ideal condition of the 
Church. Onthe other hand Calvin, Wiesinger 
and many others refer the prohibition to light 
and trifling oaths in common life. With this 
must be connected the remark of Huther that 
swearing by the name of God is not mentioned; 
had he intended this swearing, he ought to have 
mentioned it in express terms because it is not 
only commanded in the law in contradistinction 
to other oaths (Deut. vi. 18; x. 20; Ps. Ixiii. 
12), but also foretold in the prophets as a token 
of men’s future conversion to God (Is. lxv. 16; 
Jer. xii. 16; xxiii. 7, 8). But it follows also 
from this contradistinction that the oath in 
virtue of its N. T. completion was designed to be 
stripped of the formule of cursing and impreca- 
tion which always involve the pledging of things 
over which man has no control. ‘To be sure, the 
stress lies here not only on this idealizing of the 
oath but also on the total setting aside of the 
abuse of oaths in the reality of social life. This 
attitude of James respecting abitrary oaths and 
his recommendation of the anointing with oil men- 
tioned in the sequel, show that he was free from 
all Essene prejudice, for the Essenes were wont 
to administer to novices the vow of their order 
with a strong oath, although they rejected all 
other swearing, and so in like manner the an- 
ointing with oil. 

But let your yea be yea.—[Winer: Gram- 
mar, Ὁ. 92, the Imperative ἤτω for ἔστω (which 
in the N. T. is also the usual form) 1 Cor. xvi. 
22; Jas. v. 12; (Ps. civ. 31; 1 Mace. x. 81, cf. 
Clem. Alex. Strom. 6, 275; Acta Thom. 3, 7), 
Buttman I. 529; only once in Plato, Rep. 2, 361, 


138 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


d. See Schneidel p.1. According to Heraclides | a course wherever taken, will surely restore him 
(in Eustath. p. 1411, 22), the flexion is Doric. | and his transgressions will be forgiven him. 


The other imper. form ἴσθι occurs in Matth. ii. 
18: v. 25; Mark v. 34; Luke xix. 17; 1 Tim. 
iv. 15 (Buttmann I. 257).—M.]. The exhortation 
corresponding to the prohibition. Here we find 
two opposing interpretations; 1. Let your yea 
and nay agree with your consciousness of positive 
or negative facts, 7. e. let it be according to truth 
(Theophylact, Calvin and al.); 2. Let your yea 
be a simple yea, your nay a simple nay (Estius, 
Neander, Huther). We think that the two ought 
to be connected together from the nature of the 
case (see Comm. on Matth. v. 34 etc.), but that 
the choice of the expression in Matthew along 
with actual truthfulness gives prominence to the 
assurance, while here James rather intones the 
perfect composure whereby the soul contents it- 
self with the simple declaration. 

That ye fall not under judgment.—On 
the reading εἰς ὑπόκρισιν see Appar. Crit.; on the 
expression see 2 Sam. xxii. 39; Ps. xvili. 39. 
The context requires a judgment of condemna- 
tion and this isto bedreaded not only on account 
of the formal, wicked carelessness with which 
such oaths are uttered (which carelessness more- 
over leads to hypocrisy) but also on account of 
the mutinous and perilous acts or steps by which 
they are frequently sealed. 

Ver. 13. Is any among you in affliction 7 
—In opposition to the reprehensible sealing of 
excited frames of mind by such imprecatory 
swearing, the Apostle exhorts them to calmness 
of disposition and points out the means of ac- 
complishing it. Its way was under all circum- 
stances by a religious elevation of the mind. In 
the case of affliction (for the rendering: ‘does 
any among you suffer?’ strikes us as too weak) 
the depression of the mind is to be raised by 
prayer; in the case of prosperity the mind is to 
be guarded against wantonness by the sacrifice 
of prosperity, by thanksgiving, by the singing 
of psalms or songs of praise {ψάλλειν 1 Cor. xiv. 
15). Cf. ch. i. 9,10. Huther thinks that the 
connection of this exhortation with the one pre- 
ceding it cannot be substantiated. The connec- 
tion is manifestly the Christian regulation of 
different mental conditions. 

Ver. 14. Is any sick among you ?—Here 
is the culminating point of the question whether 
the language of James is to be uniformly taken 
in a literal sense, or whether it uniformly bears 
a figurative character. The literal construction 
involves these surprising moments: 1. The call- 
ing for the presbyters of the congregation in the 
Plural; 2. the general direction concerning 
their prayer accompaning unction with oil; 3. 
and especially the confident promise that the 
prayer of faith shall restore the sick apart from 
his restoration being connected with the forgive- 
ness of his sins. Wasthe Apostle warranted to 
promise bodily recovery in every case in which 
a sick individual complied with his directions? 
This misgiving urges us to adopt the symbolical 
construction of the passage, which would be as 
follows: if any man asa Christian has been hurt 
or become sick in his Christianity, let him seek 
healing from the presbyters, the kernel of the 
congregation. Let these pray with and for him 
and anoint him with the oil of the Spirit; such 


This symbol, explained in the Epistles of 
Ignatius as containing the direction that the 
bishop, the centre of the congregation should be 
called in, may be founded on a wide-spread 
Jewish Christian custom of healing the wounds 
of the sick by prayer accompanying the applica- 
tion with oil. Most remote from the mind of the 
Apostle is the Roman Catholic tradition of ex- 
treme unction; for the reference here is to the 
healing of the wounds of the sick conducing to 
their recovery, but not to a ritual preparation 
of him for death; not any more here than in 
Mark vi. 13. Cf. Huther’s note, p. 196. 

Let him call to himself (summon, call for), 
—In the case of bodily sickness it is self-evident 
that this must be done by others than the sick 
man. [προσκαλεσάσθω does not necessarily mean 
that the sick man is to call in person on the 
elders of the Church, it leaves the manner of his 
appeal undefined, he might call on them in per- 
son or summon them to his side by the interven- 
tion of others. To summon in the sense of 
sending for seems tobe the most approved 
meaning. Cf. the Lexica.—M. ]. 

The elders of the Church.—We must 
neither reduce the Plural to the Singular in the 
sense: ‘‘let him summon one of the presbyters”’ 
(Estius, Wolf), nor assert confidently that éxxAy- 
cia denotes here the particular congregation to 
which the sick man belongs, although the latter 
is probable. The main point is that ἡ ἐκκλησία, 
as a local congregation did represent from the 
beginning the whole Church and that conse- 
quently the presbyters could be sent for primarily 
from the most specific ecclesiastical district but 
also from a more distant sphere. [If I under- 
stand Lange’s allusion, I doubt whether his in- 
ference is sustained by thg,facts of the case. 
Interloping was not sanctioned in the primitive 
Church. The Apostles uniformly insist upon 
order and decency in the conduct of Church 
government. A sick man, connected with a 
particular ecclesiastical organization would send, 
of course, for the presbyters connected with it; 
where no such organization existed, he would 
send for those presbyters to whom access might 
most easily be had.—M.]. 

And let them pray over him; z. e. not 
only for him, nor only literally as standing over 
his bed, but with reference to effecting his salva- 
tion (Acts xix. 13). [Bengel: “μὲ dum orant, 
non multo minus est quam si tota oraret ecclesia.” — 
M.]}. 

[ae him with oil.—Many commen- 
tators assume, with reference to the Jewish cus- 
tom, that the oil was here intended to codperate 
as a medium of cure, cf. Jer. 8, 22; xlvi. 11; 
Luke x. 384. The disciples also used to connect 
this medium with their miraculous cures, Mark 
vi. 13. See this Comment. in loco. Now in so 
far as the reference here implied lies to an apos- 
tolical method of effecting cures, we must doubt- 
less think also of the organic connection of inter- 
cession with oil, 7. e. of the spiritual effect accom- 
panying that produced on the medium of the 
body: Huther (in opposition to Meyer) dissolves 
this connection without sufficient reason, by 
observing that the oil as such was only refresh- 


CHAP. V. 7-20. 


ing to the body. What such a refreshing 
amounts to, is not very clear; the chief point is 
that the two were to be united in one act, which 
was performed in the name of the Lord (Christ). 
But Huther rightly remarks that James did not 
prescribe anointing, but assumed the observance 
of the usage. He prescribes prayer in connec- 
tion with that usage and the anointing as an 
anointing in the name of the Lord, which latter 
particular must not be referred to prayer only 
(Gebser), nor to both acts (de Wette), but solely 
to the act of anointing (Huther). In the literal 
acceptation of the precept, prayer would be the 
medium of the miraculous cure, which was then 
to be performed in the name of the Lord (7. 6. 
not pursuant to His command, but in the power 
and limitation of Hisnmame). Schneckenburger 
adds that the presbyters had the χάρισμα ἰαμάτων 
(1 Cor. xii. 9). Huther calls this an arbitrary 
assumption and says that moreover nothing is 
said here of the χάρισμα. But the χάρισμα has 
at all times been the conditio sine qua non of min- 
isterial efficiency and in the Apostolical church 
the office of presbyter did not involve the cha- 
risma, but rather those who had the respective 
charisma were generally ordained as presbyters 
(see 1 Cor. xii. 9, 80). Huther also sets aside 
without sufficient reason the connection between 
miraculous gifts and gifts of natural experience 
to which Pott, after his manner, calls attention: 
“< quia uti omnino prudentissimi eligebantur, sic forte 
etiam artis medice peritissimi erant. 

Ver. 15. And the prayer of faith.—Not 
faith in general, but miraculous faith asa special 
charisma of the Christian spirit (see 1 Cor. xii. 
9,10). Prayer characterized by such faith, not in 
general: the prayer which faith offers. Grotius 
and al. rightly assume that this faith implies 
identity of purpose on the part of the presbyters 
who intercede, and.on that of the sick for whom 
intercession is made, for it is in this faith that 
the sick summons the presbyters (cf. the Gos- 
pels); Wiesinger and Huther arbitrarily limit 
this prayer to the act of the presbyters only. 

Shall help (heal) the sick.—Shall savingly 
restore him to health. Lyra, Schneckenburger 
and al. understand corporeal and spiritual heal- 
ing, de Wette, Wiesinger and al. corporeal only, 
because the forgiveness of sins is separately 
stated afterwards [Alford—M.]. Nevertheless 
we feel that we cannot give up the oneness of 
the two moments, seeing that the sequel doubt- 
less adverts to the possibility of particular sins 
and that, as already stated, the concrete apostoli- 
cal spiritual-corporeal cure seems to be here uni- 
formly the symbol of a spiritual-social cure of 
the wounds and infection of the judaistic confu- 
sion. 

And the Lord shall raise him up.—The 
Lord ὦ. e. Christ. Asis His wont to raise men 
spiritually-bodily, not only from the bed of sick- 
ness but also from the sickness. This ἐγείρειν 
however is not only the causality of the preced- 
ing σώζειν, but also holds out the prospect of the 
positive exaltation of life which has been effected 
by the σώζειν as the deliverance from peril of 
death. 

And though he have committed sins. 
—tThis denotes an enhanced state of distress. 
Supposing that he even (κἂν) have committed 


- 


189 


sins, as πεποιηκώς, as one who is as yet burdened 
with the guilt of those sins (Plural). The pre- 
sumption is not so much that these sins were the 
cause of the respective sickness (Huther), but 
they made the sickness a severe one and one 
difficult to cure; this would again import a 
spiritual meaning. 

It shall be forgiven him; that is, his hav- 
ing committed sins. ‘‘Even in case that.” (Hu- 
ther.) Forgiven not only in the social sense (1. 
e. by the presbyters (Hammond), not only in 
respect of his spiritual life, but the continuation, 
the curse of his guilt shall also be removed in 
respect of his life-situation. Huther wants to con- 
nect κἂν with the preceding clause: ‘‘The Lord 
shall raise him up, even if he have committed 
sins—(for) it shall be forgiven him.” In point 
of language κἂν is to favour his construction (but 
see on the other hand 1 Jno. ii. 1); but in point 
of matter such a construction would greatly 
weaken the passage. The general and uncondi- 
tional character of the assurance of renewed 
health, which is here expressed, has created 
much surprise. Hottinger expresses it more 
forcibly than any other commentator: ‘si certus 
et constans taliwm precum fuisset eventus, nemo um- 
quam mortuus esset.”” Grotius supplies the con- 
dition: ‘‘ nisi nempe aliter et suppeditat ad salutem 
zternam.” But Huther maintains against Wie- 
singer that there is no need of any restrictions 
and believes that the difficulty is removed by the 
consideration that James conceived the coming 
of Christ to be immediately impending; that 
consequently he did not consider the death of 
believers to be necessary, but viewed it only in 
the light of an evil which might be averted by 
believing intercession. Thus a second gross 
error would have paralyzed or covered the first. 
We rather opine that this very difficulty, as well 
as the whole character of the Epistle constrains 
us to adopt the symbolical interpretation. James 
assumes the existence of the custom of anointing 
the sick accompanied with prayer as a method 
of cure very generally prevalent in Jewish 
Christian Churches. This custom, traces of 
which are also found in ancient Judaism (see 
Wiesinger, p. 204*), he now turns into a symbol 
of a spiritual cure, which he recommends to those 
who were infected with the spirit of Judaism 
and revolutionary Chiliasm, as a remedy for their 
spiritual healing. This construction is also 
favoured by the next verse. [Asthe reasoning of 
Lange may not appear conclusive but rather 
doubtful to many readers of this work, I subjoin 
an outline of the subject which may prove valu- 
able for reference.—The opinion of Polycarp, 
Bp. of Smyrna, a disciple of John and a martyr, 
is very valuable and sheds light on the whole 
question. He says (ad Philipp. c. 5), ‘‘ Let the 


* Oil in the East, where it is much better than with us, is 
a common and very useful remedy employed in many dis- 
eases by rubbing it into the affected parts and pouring it 
into wounds for the purpose of mollitying them. Cf. Is.i. 6; 
Mark vi. 13; Luke x. 34; Joseph. de bello jud. 1, 33,5. The 
balm of Gilead in particular was highly esteemed as an ex- 
ternal application. Jer. viii. 22; xlvi. 11. Thus the Greek 
and Roman physicians also recommend poultices made of 
wine and oil, or vinegar and oil (Galen, de comp. medic. 2; 
Plin. H. N, 31, 47 etc.). Tertullian ad Scapulam informs us 
also that Proculus, a Christian, cured the Emperor Severus 
with oil. Cf. also Sheviith 8: qui capite dolet, aut quem in- 
vasit scabies, unguat se oleo etc. Gebser, p. 403. 


140 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


---.-- τ —:.:.—O00O0O00[—ON 55... 


presbyters be tender-hearted, merciful to all, con- 
verting the erring (see James v. 19), visiting all 
who are sick (ἐπισκεπτόμενοι πάντας ἀσθενεῖς); not 
neglecting the widow or orphan or needy (see Jas. 
i, 27), and providing always what is good in the 
sight of God, abstaining from all respect of persons 
(see James ii. 1, 9), not sharp in judgment, 
knowing that we are all sinners” (see James iii. 
2). The reference to James in brackets warrants 
the presumption that Polycarp was familiar with 
our Epistle, and the extract shows that at that 
early day the duty of visiting the sick had been 
devolved on the presbyters.—The direction that 
the sick should summon the presbyters (Plural) 
accords with the practice of our Lord who, sent 
forth His Twelve Apostles and seventy disciples 
two and two (Mark vi. 7; Luke x. 1).—The direc- 
tion would hardly have been given, if it could 
not be complied with. James, as bishop of Jeru- 
salem, presided over elders there (Acts xxi. 18) 
and his language warrants the conclusion that 
presbyters had been ordained in the principal 
cities.—Without discussing the question who 
these presbyters were, the second order of the 
ministry or the first, the great fact remains that 
the visitation of the sick is an important part of 
ministerial activity, and that it is the duty of the 
sick (whether in body or in soul) to summon their 
spiritual advisers to their side. This is an im- 
portant consideration, for in large parishes and 
especially in large cities weeks may sometimes 
elapse before the report of a parishioner’s sick- 
ness reaches their ears; if the sick are not visited 
under those circumstances, they must not blame 
their minister for remissness if they have failed 
to inform him of their sickness and to summon 
him to their side. 

Our passage establishes the fact that anointing 
the sick with prayer accompanying it was prac- 
tised in the Apostolic Church. The Apostles in 
virtue of the extraordinary and miraculous 
powers delegated to them by Christ, healed 
many, after having anointed them with oil. Cf. 
Acts vi. 13 with Matth. x. 1-8 and Luke ix. 1-6. 
The miraculous gift of healing continued for 
some time inthe Church. See 1 Cor. xii. 8, 9. 
James refers to this miraculous power of healing, 
which in its application however was not abso- 
lute, but dependent on the will of God; although 
applied in faith by the anointing presbyter and 
received in faith by the sick man, anointing did 
not heal him if he recovered his health, but 
prayer charged with faith, and this implies that 
the matter of the sick man’s cure was referred 
to the will of God, who did what was best for the 
sick, (Wordsworth), whether that was restoration 
to health or a Christian death. 

The practice of anointing with oil with a view 
to recovery from sickness was continued in the 
Eastern and Western Churches, even after the 
Church had lost the miraculous gift of healing. 
It is continued in the Eastern Church for this 
purpose to this day, but the Church of England 
and other Reformed communions have abandoned 
the practice, because they perceived that the 
effect mentioned by St. James, viz. his recovery 
did not ordinarily ensue from the anointing with 
oil, and that the miraculous gift of healing as 
well as other miraculous gifts granted to the 
Apostles, had been removed from the Church. 


; . The Church of Rome however retains the prac- 


tice of anointing the sick with oil but perverted 
the design for which it had been instituted (viz: 
recovery from sickness), into that of a sacrament 
conveying grace to the soul, the sacrament of 
extreme unction, which is certainly one of the 
most audacious perversions of Scripture on 
record. See Alford and Wordsworth. Words- 
worth: ‘‘The Apostle St. James had enjoined the 
practice with a view to the recovery of the sick; 
as Cardinal Cajetanus allows, in his note on the 
passage, where he says: ‘‘Hec verba non loqu- 
untur de Sacramentali unctione extreme uncti- 
onis,” but the Church of Rome prescribes, in the 
Councils of Florence (A.D.1488) and Trent (1551), 
that the anointing should not take place except 
where recovery is not to be looked for (Council of 
Trent, Sess. 14, *‘qui tam periculose decumbunt ut 
in exitu vite constituti videantur”’), and therefore 
she calls this anointing ‘extreme unction,” and 
“‘sacramentum exeuntium,” and she regards it as 
a sacrament conveying grace tothe soul. Thus, 
on the one hand, the Greek Church is a witness 
by her present practice, that the anointing was 
designed with a view to bodily recovery; and the 
Roman Church, on the other hand, is a witness, 
that the miraculous effects on the body, which were 
wrought in primitive times through the instru- 
mentality of those who anointed the sick, and 
which accompanied that unction, have ceased.” — 
See this whole subject discussed in my article 
‘An account of Extreme Unction,’”’ Princeton Re- 
view, Vol. XXXVII. No. 2, April, 1865.—M.]. 

Ver. 16. Confess therefore your sins 
(transgressions) to one another.—This in- 
junction is general: it is the generalization of 
the preceding sentence. Cajetanus rightly ob- 
serves: ‘‘nec hic est sermo de confessione sacra- 
mentali;” but the clause implies also the fact 
that James knew nothing of such a confessio, or 
he would have said: ‘Confess your sins to the 
presbyters,” of whom he had just been speaking. 
As to the sins here referred to, Huther understands 
sins in general as violation of the Divine law, in 
opposition to Wolf, who explains them as offences 
against one another, Matth. xviii. 15. Bengel: 
“* Hgrotus et quisquis offendit, jubetur confiteri ; 
offensus, orare.”” But the particular sins which 
are meant here, at least primarily, may be ga- 
thered from the whole Epistle; the reference is 
to the whole Judaistie movement which in so 
many respects had made them sick and feeble. 
But the thought has also the more general import 
that the confession of certain known transgres- 
sions is at once an unburdening of the conscience 
and a furtherance of prayer in the case of those 
who are thus drawn into the Christian fellow- 
feeling of guilt and thus also the preliminary 
condition both of forgiveness and of spiritual 
(and often even of bodily) healing. How many 
a germinating madness and suicide, how many a 
heart-languor and disorder which vexes the 
members and weighs down the body was to be 
obviated by this mutual effect of confession and 
intercession! But James had more particularly 
in view the hurts which were then troubling 
Israel. Both the confession and the intercession 
were to be mutual. 

That ye may be healed.—This healing is 
understood spiritually by Grotius and al., spiri- 


CHAP. V. 7-20. 


141 


tually and corporeally by Schneckenburger and 
al., corporeally only by de Wette, Huther and al. 
As nothing is said here of the forgiveness of sins, 
the promise of healing implies evidently also spi- 
ritual healing: but the idea “that ye may be 
healed theocratically ᾽ is probably predominant. 
“It is to be remembered that the prayer of the 
presbyters does not exclude the common inter- 
cession of Christians and that the efficacy attri- 
buted to the latter is not less than that attributed 
to the former.” Huther. [This is one of the 
passages adduced by the Latin Church for the 
necessity of confessing sins to a priest. Alford 
cites Corn.-a-Lapide’s exegesis as a specimen of 
the way in which the Romish doctrine is de- 
duced. ‘‘Alterutrum, id est, homo homini, similis 
simili, frater fratri confitemini, puta sacerdoti, qui 
licet officio sit superior, natura tamen est par, infirmi- 
tate similis, obligatione confitendi equalis.”—M. ]. 
The prayer... . availeth much.—A say- 
ing of the power of genuine prayer designed to 
encourage them to adopt the recommendations 
previously set forth, ἡ. 6. both mutual confession 
of sins and mutual intercession. The great effi- 
cacy of such intercession is still further brought 
about by the position of πολύ ete. and by the 
gnomic and asyndetical structure of the sentence. 


Of arighteous man, of a ("TY in the theo- 


cratic sense, 7. 6. not one ‘‘in a state of righteous- 
ness”? as Hofmann expresses it, for ‘‘the state of 
righteousness”? denotes an ontological, passive 
condition, while in the case of the theocratically 
righteous every thing turns on actuality, on the 
living faith, on the living God and His word of 
life. The species of these righteous men is the 
same in the Old Testament and in the New; they 
are men of living, energetic faith (Rom. iv), 
although the righteous man of the New Testa- 
ment has the advantage of an objective as well 
as of a subjective τελείωσις. Hence Elias may 
here be held up to the Christians as the pattern 
of a real man of prayer. 

Inwardly effectual (working).—évepyov- 
μένη causes not little difficulty and has given rise 
to a great variety of opinions among commenta- 
tors, A main point to be determined is whether 
ἐνεργουμένη ought to be taken as an epithet to 
δέησις, as the majority of commentators take it, 
or as a pure participial definition of the verb 
ἰσχύει (so Pott, de Wette, Huther, who are however 
at variance with respect to the sense). Pott: 
“Prayer is able to work much” or ‘prayer is 
able to work much and worketh much.” de 
Wette: <‘‘if it becomes energetic.” Huther: 
“In its energy” or ‘‘in its working.” But all 
this is rather tautological unless it be made to 
denote a theurgic operation, which is inadmissi- 
ble. The adjectival construction may be taken 
passively or actively, or in the most literal sense 
as a middle, as a kind of Hithpael. Prayer may 
be considered. passively as co’nimated by the 
prayer of him for whom it is offered (Oecume- 
nius), as moved by the Holy Spirit, inspired 
(Micheelis), as penetrated by faith (Carpzoy), as 
animated and attended by impulse to work 
[ Werktrieb, so Calvin and Gebser]. Taken ac- 
tively the idea of évepyouuévy coincides more or 
less with évepyfce or ἐνεργός (see Luke xxii. 44 
éxtevgc). So Luther: ‘if it is earnest;” Vul- 


gate: ‘‘asstdua,” and similarly many others. On 
the other hand, Huther contends that this con- 
struction is contrary to N. T. usage, while Wies- 
inger maintains that this usage may be substan- 
tiated and refers to the proofs supplied by Wahl. 
We believe that the N. T. middle ἐνεργέομαι (Rom. 
vil. 5; 2 Cor. i. 6; iv. 12; Gal. v.6; Eph. iii. 
20; Col. i. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Thess. ii. 7) de- 
notes according to the Hebrew and Christian 
conception a passivo-active working, 7. 6. a work- 
ing set in motion by a previously experienced 
impulse. This in malam partem applies to the 
lusts in the members (Rom. vii. 5), to the mystery 
of iniquity (2 Thess. ii. 7), in bonam partem to the 
subjective σωτηρία (2 Cor. i. 6), to the subjective 
πίστις (Gal. v. 6), tothe vital energy in believers 
(Eph. iii. 20), to the energy of Christ in believers 
(Col. 1. 29), to the word of God appropriated by 
men (1 Thess. ii. 13); in both respects, to death 
and life (2 Cor. iv. 12). The Active however is 
used with reference to God Eph. i. 11; Phil. ii. 
13; Gal. ii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 6; of His Spirit 1 Cor. 
xii. 11; also of Satan Eph. ii. 2. It follows from 
this clearly marked usage of the word that we 
must also take δέησις with the predication évepyov- 
μένη as indicating an efficiency effected or an 
impulse impelled. The idea doubtless imports 
the full tension of the praying spirit under its 
absolute obedience (yielding to) to the Divine 
impulse. And in this respect there is here an 
allusion to the idea of the miraculously potent 
prayer which works the ἐνεργήματα. [The Apos- 
tle’s idea expressed in plain words, seems to be 
that prayer in order to lead to outward effects, 
must work inwardly in grateful adoration of and 
fervent love and humble resignation to God; 
otherwise prayer is only a hollow, unmeaning 
and inefficacious uttering of words. Luther in 
his terse language hits the point, when he says 
in some place that ‘he who prays must feel that 
he is a beggar.”” Absolute submission to the will 
of God is of course the very soul of prayer, and 
the true Christian never engages in prayer with- 
out the pious sentiment: ‘Not my will, but 
Thine be done.” Wordsworth remarks: ‘The 
martyrdom of St. James himself affords a beau- 
tiful comment on these words, especially where 
it is related that after he had been cast down by 
his enemies from the pediment of the Temple and 
they were stoning him, he fell on his knees and 
prayed for them, and some, who stood by, said, 
adopting the very words of this Epistle—* Hold, 
what do ye? εὔχεται ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ὁ δίκαιος," 
‘the just man is praying for you.” See Intro- 
duction.—M. ]. 

Ver. 17. Elias was a man of like passions. 
π-όμοιοπαθῆς does not exactly signify that Elias 
had the capacity of suffering, or his real sufferings 
(Laurentius, Schneckenburger), but ‘of like 
condition and nature” (Wiesinger and Huther) 
is hardly adequate in point of sense. In Acts 
xiv. 15 there is certainly an implied emphasis on 
the dependence and restraints of human nature 
as contrasted with the Being of God. Moreover 
in Wisd. vii. 8 the reference to the earth imports 
not so much equality of kind as equality of con- 
dition. In the case of Elias the term ‘like 
passions”’ or liability to being affected, points at 
least to his capacity of suffering and temptabi- 
lity. 


142 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


And he prayed a prayer [with prayer].— 
Analogous to the Hebrew idiom of producing in- 
tensification by placing the Infinitive of the verb in 
juxtaposition with the Indicative, or by connect- 


ing the latter with the noun Gen. ii. 17 YY 
PHM. Considering that Huther himself ob- 


τὰ 

serves that this form serves to bring out the 
verbal idea, it is difficult to account for his oppo- 
sition to the exposition of Wiesinger and al., that 
the prayer of Elias was an earnest prayer. 
[Huther, I presume, objects to the introduction 
of anewword. The prayer of Elias was genuine 
prayer, prayer charged with évépyeca.—M. ]. 

That it might not rain.—pé yew is imper- 
sonal. [The gen. of the intent. See Winer, p. 
343.—M. ]. 

And it did not rain in the land [on the 
earth ].—Considering the O. T. colouring of the 
whole Epistle we may be allowed to translate 
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς with Grotius and al. ‘in the land,” 
but Huther retains Luther’s rendering ‘‘on 
earth,” Schneckenburger compares this weighty 
saying with Gen. i. 8: ‘‘fiat lux et facta est lux.” 
But there remains the important difference that 
here the reference is not to an authoritative com- 
mand (Machtspruch). 

[Three years and six months.—Words- 
worth: equal to 42 months or 1260 days, a chro- 
nological period of suffering. See Rey. xi. 3. 
—M.]. 

ee. 18. And the heaven gave rain.—A 
personifying, vivid mode of expression, remind- 
ing us of the prophetic style, Hos. ii. 21, 22. 

And the earth brought forth her fruit. 
—This was really the immediate purpose of the 
prayer. βλαστάνω [properly an intransitive verb, 
but used transitively—M.], a transitive verb: it 
let spring up, 7. 6. it put, brought forth. An ap- 
plication of what is related 1 Kings xvii. 1; xviii. 
1, 42 etc. The positive announcement of the 
drought may have led James to draw the reason- 
able inference that Elias had prayed for it, al- 
though we have no record to that effect, and 
tradition had probably anticipated his inference. 
Such a completion is however very different from 
a discrepancy (Huther). The second apparent 
difference is as follows: in 1 Kings xviii. 1, Elijah 
is said to have foretold and to have been instru- 
mental in bringing about the return of rain in 
the third year, while our passage affirms that it 
did not rain on the earth for three years and six 
months. Seeing that Luke iv. 25 and the tract 
Jalcut Simeoni give the same duration, it would 
seem that that space of time was the uniform 
Jewish tradition. The explanation lies mani- 
festly in the fact that 1 Kings xviii. specifies the 
real famine according to its duration. But it 
stands to reason that the famine did not begin 
until one year after the announcement of the 
drought, viz. after the failure of the early and 
the latter rain. During the first year the people 
were still living on the harvest of the preceding 
year, Jewish tradition consequently added one 
year to the period of time mentioned in a general 
way in 1 Kings in order to mark the whole 
period between the two announcements of Elijah. 
Benson’s solution of the difference is somewhat 
different but not very clear. He says: ‘‘accu- 
ratior serioris traditionis computatio, ducitur a tem- 


pore non pluvie primum cessantis, sed ultimum ante 
siccitatem cadentis, quam dimidio fere anno distare in 
promptu est.” That is, the first year of the 
drought is not added to the famine of about two 
and a half years’ duration, but the half year 
from the first failure of rain to the last fall of 
rain immediately preceding. Wiesinger is satis- 
fied with Benson’s calculation, but Huther insists 
upon the discrepancy, because according to the 
statement of James, the drought began immedi- 
ately after Elijah’s praying. But the narrative 
itself contains intimations that the drought did 
not at once produce famine, 1 Kings xvii. 7; ch. 
xviii. 5. [Benson observes, however, that the 
words ‘in the third year” of 1 Kings xviii. 1 do 
not necessarily refer to the duration of the fa- 
mine, but most naturally date back to the re- 
moval of Elijah to Zarephath, ch. xvii. 8 etc; cf. 
the same ‘*many days” in ch. xvii. 15, where in- 
deed a variation is ‘‘for a full year.” Alford. 
—M.]. But far more important is the question 
why James selects just this example of an answer 
to prayer from the history of Israel. The great- 
est stress seems to lie on his intercession of pity, 
which was the more edifying as an example be- 
cause the readers of the Epistle were wont to 
consider Elijah as a censurer. A drought had 
for a long time come also upon the spiritual life 
of Israel; the readers were therefore encour- 
aged to pray with the faith of an Elijah for a rain 
of grace to fall on their people. The prophet’s 
first prayer is mentioned first, in order to furnish 
them with a forcible illustration that prayer is 
heard and answered, and perhaps also to show 
them how the real men of prayer in Israel were 
independent of and superior to the evil frame of 
mind which kept the populace in a ferment. 
Moreover the general tendency of Elijah’s pray- 
ers was hostile to the apostasy of Israel, and the 
zeal of their believing men of prayer was now to 
be directed against the new apostasy which con- 
sisted in an obdurate opposition to the Gospel 
(see ch. iv. 4; Rom. xi, 1-5). 

Conclusion replete with promise. vy. 19, 20. 

Ver. 19. My brethren, if any among you 
should have strayed from the truth,— 
‘This imports not a single practical aberration, 
but an alienation from the Christian principle of 
life, an inward apostasy from the λόγος ἀληθείας, 
of which the Christian is begotten (ch. i. 18), dis- 
closing itself in a single course of life, Cf. Luke 
i. 16,17, v. 20.” Huther. But the tenor of the 
whole Epistle constrains us to define this aber- 
ration still further as an aberration into Judaistic 
and chiliastic doings and fanatico-seditious lusts. 
[πλανηθῇ is passive and Alford rightly remarks 
“that there is no reason why the passive signi- 
fication should not be kept, especially when we 
remember our Lord’s warning, βλέπετε μή τις 
ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ.᾽"---Μ.1. 

And one should convert him, to the 
truth, from which he has strayed in peril of 
apostasy. 

Ver. 20. Let him know [know ye—M. ].— 
He that converts is to know the importance of 
his action and what a blessing rests upon it. 
The word, as to its form, is a hypothetical an- 
nouncement or promise to him who is found thus 
doing, but as to its contents it is a general sen- 
tence or a sententious encouragement to all con- 


CHAP. V. 7-20. 


143 


DL nL o> Gl lll. a 


Joined with the promise of a prize to those who 
act upon it. On this account ἐπιστρέψας is re- 
peated after ὅτι. 


That he who converteth a sinner.—The 
person who has strayed through delusion from 
the truth, considered from a practical point of 
view. Let the readers know that all those who 
have strayed in part or entirely from the truth 
are sinners according to the emphatic theocratic 
idea: doomed to the death-ban. This weighty 
part of the word is weakened by Huther’s re- 
mark, ‘‘that the reference is no longer to the 
person who has gone astray but to the whole 
genus to which the Christian who has strayed 
from the truth belongs as species.” The two 
ideas: delusion and dogmatical apostasy and 
practical ruin must not be separated on the 
theocratical ground, nor must the former kind 
be subordinated to the latter as species, although 
the practical and the theocratic form of ruin may 
alternately predominate. 


Shall save a soul from death.—From 
death, as in ch. i. 15 and throughout the New 
Testament, from subjective damnation as it is 
inherent in the personality itself, defined more- 
over negatively with respect to the subject as the 
loss of the true life, of the true destination and 
sphere of life; a moral dissolution of the onto- 
logical life eternally self-generating itself, as on 
the other hand the true life generates life. A 
soul. The naked, inward existence of the per- 
sonality itself, man in all his capacity of suffer- 
ing and salvation and need of help. He shall 
save the soul. The conversion of the apostate is 
the conversion of a sinner; this has as its conse- 
quence his deliverance from death, because he is 
in the way of death and is overtaken before he 
finally falls into the snares of death. We need 
not stop to show that this presupposes Divine 
redemption as the salvation to which he is con- 
verted and the Divine codperation of the Word 
and of the Holy Spirit as the means of salvation 
whereby he is converted. In the battle of faith 
between the believing readers of the Epistle and 
their half-believing and unbelieving brethren 
the point at issue turns therefore not upon dog- 
matical disputes of the synagogue, but solely and 
purely on the salvation of poor souls from eter- 
nal death, and not only on this but along with 
the salvation of many individuals, on the re- 
moval of a universal curse. 


And shall cover a multitude of sins.— 
That is, the averting of a general ruin is brought 
about by the faithful salvation of many indivi- 
duals. This covering of sins (cf. I Pet. iv. 8; 
Proy. x. 12) καλύπτειν contains doubtless refer- 
ence in an enlarged sense, to the Hebrew (7.2: 

== 


to cover, cover over sins, i. 6. to forgive, Ps. 
xxxii. 1 and elsewhere. But considering that 
such absolute covering of sin is the prero- 
gative of God, it is probably better to think here 
of instrumental covering “\Q5) which is also 


used more especially of different means and 
mediators of atonement; not only of the cover 
of the ark, of sacrifice, of the high-priest, but 
also of the very sins to be atoned for (Ex. xxx. 
15: Is. xlvii. 11), and also especially of the per- 
son interceding, Ex. xxxii. 30. The last passage 


strikes us as peculiarly important. Moses effect- 
ed the reconciliation of his people not as a 
sacrifice, not as high-priest, but by intercession, 
i. e. by the subjective mediation of the objective 
atonement. This objective atonement therefore 
is here assumed, just as the former expression, 
he shall save, presupposes objective salvation. 
The believing Jews are to become intercessors 
for their poor people, become instrumental to 
bring about its real atonement. Believers parti- 
cipate in the atoning work of Christ as in His 
sufferings and intercession not as causa media- 
toria but as causa organica. But the commenta- 
tors are at variance whether the reference here 
is to the sins of the converters or to those of the 
converted. Erasmus and al. take it thus: by 
his good work he shall obtain remission of his 
sins with God. The Jews held (Joma fol. 87): 
“ guicunque multos ad justitiam adducit, per ejus 
manus non perpetratur peccatum.”  Augusti: He 
will obtain forgiveness on the part of men; his 
own offences will not be remembered. With 
more reason the majority of commentators refer 
the words to the sins of the converted. But the 
reference is not solely to the particular sins of 
the persons to be converted, and not even to their 
personal offences. πλῆθος denotes fulness, an 
entire mass taken as a unit, and the ἁμαρτίαι are 
the offences requiring to be atoned for. The 
reference is consequently to the total national 
guilt of Israel. To be sure, it is not referred to 
with greater distinctness or more clearly defined 
than by τὸ πλῆθος, because James, according to 
ch. vy. 1, could no longer hope for the immediate 
salvation of all Israel, but foresaw, like Paul, a 
great judgment on their obduracy. But it was 
still his duty pitifully to wrestle with the judgment 
and to save a fulness (multitude) of souls and to 
atone for their sins. But whereas a common, na- 
tional guiltis ever growing, and whereas this work- 
ing of the curse can be broken only by means of the 
atonement, the observation of Huther is ground- 
less ‘“‘that this does not describe the sins which 
the ἁμαρτωλός would still commit and which are 
now prevented by means of his conversion (Pott: 
“multa futura impediet”’), but the whole multitude 
of sins which he had committed before his con- 
version.” This restriction misapprehends the 
progressive nature of guilt, not to say anything 
of the circumstance, that the reference is no 
longer exclusively to the sins of converted indi- 
viduals. The conclusion of the Epistle shows in 
general, as we have seen repeatedly before, that 
the usual exposition does by no means come up 
to the lofty stand-point and point of view of 
James. De Wette takes objection to the strong 
idea πλῆθος, saying that the reference is only to 
aberration and not to viciousness of life and 
seeks to arrange his assertion by inferences; 
Stolz asserts that the sinner’s amendment of life 
has the effect of consigning to oblivion his former 
transgressions; even Wiesinger and Huther re- 
strict the import of the passage in two ways: 
‘‘the reference is only to the multiform sin of 
the aforesaid converted individual and only to 
the circumstance that the converter becomes by 
his conversion the occasion of God forgiving his 
sins. ‘But our passage reminds us of the rela- 
tion of Paul to his people, Rom. ix. 3; xi. 14. 
And as James, according to Acts, exhibited a 


144 


peculiar fidelity in working for the salvation of 
his people, and, according to tradition, interceded 
for them with God, so at the conclusion of the 
Epistle he here invites the whole believing part 
of his people to engage in intercession and in the 
work of salvation, that many individuals might 
be saved from death, and a multitude of sins 
might be atoned for. The whole Epistle shows 
that he confines himself solely to human saving 
and atoning as a medium of bringing back the 
people to the true Redeemer and Reconciler, but 
he deems it of peculiar importance that the 
brethren must not fail to do their part in the 
work. Of course his words, in their sententious 
form, are also here so construed, that they possess 
a general and eternally valid apostolical signifi- 
cance; but as it was the duty of the expositor 
throughout the course of his exposition to give 
prominence to the noble historical import of this 
Epistle, which has been only too much missed 
and neglected, so he does at its conclusion. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The long-suffering patience required of the 
followers of Jesus is a duty of so wide a range, 
that the discharge of it, at least under many cir- 
cumstances, would be too much for human 
strength, if the strength of their faith and hope 
were not animated by the thought of the nearness 
of the Lord’s coming. Therefore the words ‘the 
coming of the Lord is nigh”’ ought to be con- 
stantly before our eyes. While the Christians of 
the Apostolic Age were perhaps too much in- 
clined to consider the coming of Christ to be 
near at hand in a literal sense, the Christian 
eense of our own age suffers this great final 
event to stand too much in the background and 
substitutes for it in most instances a mere indi- 
vidual hope of salvation immediately after death. 
The more we learn again that we belong ‘to 
men also that love His appearing” (2 Tim. iv. 8) 
in the Apostolic acceptation of the term, the 
easier we shall find the practice of Christian 
patience and endurance in view of this the only 
satisfactory final development of the drama of 
history. 

2. James as well as our Lord Himself (Matth. 
xiii. and elsewhere), saw the kingdom of grace 
reflected and portrayed in the kingdom of nature. 
The disciple of Jesus may learn much from 
the diligent and patient waiting of the husband- 
man. 

8. The heroes of faith of the Old Testament 
are regarded by James also in the light of pat- 
terns to the Christian in his course, just as in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (ch. xi. xii.). The rule 
that the way through suffering leads to glory, is 
in reality as valid under the Old Testament as 
under the New. Cf. Luke xxiv. 26; Acts xiy. 
22. 

4. James begins (ch. i. 12) and ends (ch. v. 
11) his Epistle with a beatitude, just as our 
Lord began (Matth. v. 3) and ended (Jno. xx. 
29). His instructions with similar beatitudes. 
The introduction of the example of Job isthe more 
remarkable because this is the only place in the 
New Testament where his history is referred to. 

5. The dehortation from frivolous swearing is 
intimately and naturally connected with the 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


notice of endurance and patience, which precedes 
it. Those who are impatient and discontented 
will readily curse and swear in their violence. 
while those who possess their souls in patience 
will also in this respect guard their mouth and 
keep their lips. The context shows abundantly 
that James does not absolutely prohibit all swear- 
ing, but only those oaths which men take when 
they are not as patient as Job (Job ii. 10), but as 
impatient as Job (ch. iii. 1), when they curse 
their day. Like Christ, (Matth. xxiii. 16-22 

the Apostle condemns light and trifling swearing 
and specifies several examples thereof. Had he 
intended to forbid swearing by the name of God, 
he would doubtless have mentioned this first and 
most weighty oath before all others. But con- 
sidering that the law expressly enjoined swear- 
ing by the name of the Lord (Numb. vi. 13, ὃ; 
x. 20) and that the prophets referred to this 
swearing as the characteristic of the servants of 
the Lord (Is. Ixv. 16; Jer. xii. 16; xvi. 14, 15), 
itis ἃ priort highly improbable that James, who 
was penetrated through and through by the 
spirit of the Old Testament, should have intended 
to forbid also this oath. Swearing by the name of 
God is not only permitted but often becomes ne- 
cessary in an imperfect state of society because 
of the sins of men, although it belongs surely 
to the ideal of the kingdom of God that no oath 
will be required in it and that yea and nay are 
as reliable as an oath. In this respect we may 
say, that the Christian, if the civil authority 
requires him to take an oath, is necessitated to 
do so only in consequence of his sojourn in the 
midst of this sinful and wicked world. Ina cer- 
tain sense we may say of oaths what Paul said 
of the law that τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη 
Gal. iii. 19. Cf. Lange on Matth. ν. 33-37, and 
on the Hebrew formule of oaths in general 
Riietschi in Herzog’s R. #. IIL. p. 713 sqq. 

6. Genuine Christian faith is distinguished 
by becoming equanimity in good and eyil days, 
as prescribed by James (ch. y. 13) and illus- 
trated inter alia by Paul (Phil. iv. 10-20). With- 
out Christ man is very apt to despond under 
suffering and equally prone to become elated 
with prosperity. The true Christian will in 
suffering seek consolation in prayer and so en- 
joy his prosperity that God is glorified thereby. 

7. The visitation and comforting of the sick is 
one of the most natural and important parts of 
the cura pastoralis. For special directions con- 
sult the works on pastoral and practical theology 
of Hiiffell, Harms, Nitzsch, Palmer and ἃ]. 
[Also Burnet, on the Pastoral Care, Wilson’s 
Parochialia, Visitatio Infirmorum and Vinet.—M. 7. 
On the true Christian frame of mind on the sick- 
bed compare an essay by N. Beets, translated 
from the Dutch in the Jahrbuch des rheinisch-west- 
phiilischen Schriftvereins, 1862, p. lete. [Also an 
excellent work, published anonymously, entitled 
‘Sickness, its trials and blessings,’’ New York: 
1857.—M. }. 

8. Only by confining oneself to the sound of 
the words (vv. 14-16), it is possible to find here 
the precepts of extreme unction and auricular 
confession in the sense of the Roman Catholic 
Church. See under Exegetical and Critical. 
James refers plainly to miraculous recovery and 
to the mutual confession of offences among bre- 


CHAP. V. 7-20. 


thren in the event of one having failed in his 
duty towards another. On the other hand there 
exists also an Ultra-Protestantism and Anti- 
Romanism, which deems the use of both these 
means of grace altogether superfluous and al- 
most prohibits them, which is likewise without 
blessing. The decrease of the gift of miracles is 
surely no proof of the increase of faith, and the 
entire discontinuance of mutual confession of 
sins is a sad token of the want of humility and 
brotherly love. Cf. Herzog’s R. #. Article Oe- 
lung. 

9. It may be very superstitious and uncharita- 
ble to assume a direct connection of a certain 
sin and a certain disease; cf. Jno. ix. 3. But it 
is also very superficial to deny all connection 
between sin and disease. If there were no sins 
in the world, there would certainly be no 
plagues. The sick man consequently does well, 
if he recalls on the sick-bed first of all his own 
sins and seeks to obtain their forgiveness. For- 
giveness of sins and recovery from sickness are 
in many respects more closely connected than 
most people think and therefore both are pro- 
mised to the citizen of the celestial common- 
wealth, Is. xxxiii. 24. 

10. The duty of brotherly exhortation ad- 
dressed to blacksliding brethren (vv. 19, 20), so 
warmly recommended by the Apostle, has also 
been enjoined by our Lord and the Apostles else- 
where (cf. Matth. xviii. 15-18; 1 Thess. v. 14; 
2 Thess. iii. 13-16; Heb. x. 24). The writings 
of pagan moralists contain also excellent direc- 
tions concerning the manner how such friendly 
reproof should be administered. See e. g. Plu- 
tarch, de discrim. amici et adulatoris pp. 244-276, 
edit. Reisk.; Cicero, de amicitia cap. 24, 25. A 
striking proof of the blessing which may attend 
such a work of love towards the salvation of an 
almost lost soul, and of the manner how this 
duty should be discharged, is found in the well- 
known legend ‘John and the robber-chief,”’ told 
by Clem. Alex., quis dives salvus, cap. 42. But 
James shows himself throughout this Epistle as 
an exemplar of ardent Christian zeal for con- 
verting sinners from the error of their way and for 
saving souls fromdeath. His words open a wide 
field and a glorious prospect to Christian philan- 
thropy and the specific cure of souls. Hence Zwin- 
gli and Herder are not wrong in their criticisms 
on the conclusion of this Epistle; the former say- 
ing: ‘‘Insigni doctrina veluti colophone epistolam 
absolvit,”’ and the latter: ‘‘The conclusion, the 
strongest assurance, is like a seal affixed to the 
testament.” — 

[On the connection of vy. 12, 18 with v. 11. 
Bp. Sanderson, (Lectures on Oaths, vii. 11): 
“Set the examples of ancient prophets and holy 
men before your eyes. If ye suffer adversity, 
imitate their patience. If in all things, you can- 
not attain to that perfection, yet thus far at 
least, except ye be very negligent, you may go 
with ease; above all things, take heed lest too 
impatient of your grief, or too much transported 
with your joy, ye break forth into rash oaths, to 
the dishonour of God and shame of Christian 
conversation. But rather contain yourselves, 
whether troubled or rejoicing, within the bounds 
of Modesty; mingle not Heaven and earth, let not 
all things be filled with your oaths and clamours; 


145 


if you affirm a thing, let it be with calmness, and 
a mere affirmation or negation. But if either of 
these passions be more impetuous, and strive to 
overflow the narrow channels of your bosoms, it 
will be your wisdom to let it forth unto the glory 
of God. Do you demand by what means? I 
will tell you: Js any among you afflicted? Let 
not his impatience break forth into Oaths and 
Blasphemies, the Flood-gates of wrath; but 
rather let him pray, and humbly implore God 
that He would vouchsafe him Patience, till His 
heavy hand be removed. Js any merry? Let 
him not bellow it forth in Oaths, like a Baccha- 
nalian, but rather sing it in Hymns and Psalms 
unto the praise of God: Who hath made his cup 
to overflow, and crowned him with happy days.” 

Barrow: (Serm. XV. vol. I. p. 929). “In 
these words St. James doth not mean universally 
to interdict the use of oaths: for that in some 
cases is not only lawful, but very expedient, yea 
needful, and required from us as a duty; but 
that swearing which qur Lord had expressly pro- 
hibited to His disciples, and which thence, 
questionless, the brethren to whom St. James did 
write, did well understand themselves to forbear, 
haying learnt so in the first Catechisms of Chris- 
tian institution; that is, needless and heedless 
swearing in ordinary conversation, a practice then 
frequent in the world, both among Jews and 
Gentiles; the invoking of God’s name, appealing 
to His testimony, and provoking His judgment, 
upon any slight occasion, in common talk, with 
vain incogitancy, or profane boldness. From 
such practice the holy Apostle dehorteth in terms 
importing his great concernedness, and implying 
the matter to be of the highest importance: for, Be- 
fore all things, my brethren, do not swear; as if he 
did apprehend this sin of all other to be one of 
the most heinous and pernicious. Could he have 
said more? would he have said so much, if he 
had not conceived the matter to be of exceeding 
weight and consequence?” 

V. 14. Hooker: Hecl. Polit. v. 25.3. ‘The 
authority of the Priest’s calling is a furtherance, 
because if God had so far received him into 
favour as to impose upon him by the hands of 
man that office of blessing the people in His 
name, and making intercession to Him in theirs, 
which office he hath sanctified with His own most 
gracious promise, and ratified that promise by 
manifest actual performance thereof, when others 
before in like place have done the same; is not 
his very ordination a seal, as it were, to us, that 
the self-same Divine Love that hath chosen the 
Instrument to work with, willby that Instrument 
effect the thing whereto He ordained it, in bless- 
ing His people, and accepting the prayers, which 
His servant offered up unto God for them?” 

V. 16. Hooker: vi. 47. ‘But the greatest thing 
which made men forward and willing upon their 
knees to confess whatsoever they had committed 
against God, and in no wise to be withheld from 
the same with any fear of disgrace, contempt or 
obloquy, which might ensue, was their fervent 
desire to be helped and assisted with the prayers 
of God’s saints. Wherein as St. James doth ex- 
hort unto mutual confession, alleging this only for 
a reason, that just men’s devout prayers are of 
great avail with God; so it hath been heretofore 
the use of penitents for that intent to unburthen 


146 


their minds, even to private persons, and to crave 
their prayers.” He quotes the following beauti- 
ful passages from Ambrose de Poenit. 11. 10, and 
Tertullian, de Poenit. c. 10. 

AmprosE: “Let thy mother the Church weep 
for thee, let her wash and bathe thy faults with 
her tears: our Lord doth love that many should 
become supplicants for one.” The reference is 
to voluntary penitents, who openly repented and 
confessed. 

TerTULLIAN: ‘Some few assembled make a 
Church, and the Church is as Christ Himself; 
when thou dost therefore put forth thy hands to 
the knees of thy brethren, thou touchest Christ, 
it is Christ unto whom thou art a suppliant; so 
when they pour out their tears over them, it is 
even Christ that taketh compassion; Christ 
which prayeth when they pray: neither can they 
be easily denied, for which the Son Himself is 
contented to become the suitor.” The reference 
is still to voluntary penitents. 

On private confession, Hooker asserts and af- 
terwards proves his assertion that the practice 
was unknown in the earliest and purest ages of 
the Church. “1 dare boldly affirm, that for 
many hundred years after Christ the Fathers 
held no such opinion; they did not gather by our 
Saviour’s words any such necessity of seeking 
the priest’s absolution from sin, by secret and (as 
they now term it) sacramental confession: public 
confession, they thought necessary by way of 
discipline, not private confession, as in the nature 
of a sacrament, necessary.” Zccl. Pol. VI. 4, 6. 
--Μ.1. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Vv. 7-12. Christian long-suffering immeasura- 
bly different from stoical insensibility.—The 
Lord’s coming a consolation to the godly, a terror 
to the ungodly.—What the Christian, and espe- 
cially the minister of the Gospel, may learn from 
the husbandman.—‘‘ Behold, the husbandman” 
etc. an excellent text for missionary discourses; 
waiting for the Lord should be 1, desired, 2, pa- 
tient, 3, active, and 4, hopeful.—Rainy seasons 
must precede the day of harvest both in the king- 
dom of nature and in that of grace.—Christians, if 
opposed, should not groan against one another, 
but pray so much the more to God the Lord.— 
The witnesses of the truth at once the patterns 
of its professors.—The blessedness of the suffer- 
ing; 1, the worth it possesses; 2, the price at 
which it is acquired.—The end of God’s ways a 
blessing to His people.—Lawful and unlawful 
use of oaths.—Christian love of the truth in re- 
lation to an unholy world. 

Srarke :—A Christian patiently waits for the 
harvest of the promised riches of eternity, while 
meanwhile the early rain and the latter rain of 
the grace of Jesus Christ moistens and refreshes 
his often weary heart. 

Hepincer :—Hope sows the seed and calmly 
sleeps on the pillow of Divine Providence until 
the time of harvest, 7. 6. of a gracious answer, Vv. 
7.) Perexviil, 7. 

QuesNeL:—O sinner, how many iniquities dost 
thou commit behind the door, in secret. But be- 
hold, the Judge standeth at the door, Is, xxix. 15. 

Cramer :—We are not better than our fathers 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


ee SS -T e 


(1 Kings xix. 4); therefore the prophets and 
patriarchs, Christ and His Apostles teach us not 
only by words but by their deeds to be patient, 
Lam. iii. 26. 

Lanett op.:—Suffering and patience are well 
conjoined, for the sufferings which we endure for 
God and for conscience’ sake, differ most from 
other sufferings in patience, 1 Cor, iv. 12. 

OsIANDER:—The virtues of the saints are 
shown us in Holy Scripture, not that we may 
only marvel at them, but that we may imitate 
them, Heb. xiii. 7.—God had also besides the 
Jewish people those who were His, who served 
Him in spirit and in truth. The Church of God 
is therefore not tied to a particular people or 
sect, Job. i. 1.—God will not remember the sins 
of believers (Is. xliii. 25), but always the good 
which they have done (Matth. xxv. 85).—Oaths 
should not be lightly used nor become habitual 
to us; yet nothing is less thought of in the world 
than this most important matter. 

Strer:—The whole period of the world’s du- 
ration with its thousands of years of mankind 
upon earth is a mighty sowing for the final har- 
vest in which the earth, having received its seed 
from heaven, is to give its fruit to heaven. At 
the harvest we shall understand the ways of 
God. If many things are dark and confused to 
us now, let us wait only for the time of the ripen- 
ing! This applies to every individual in respect 
of this life’s day of grace, it applies in its high- 
est and best sense to the true Christian who 
really lives for eternity. There passes through- 
out all Christendom, there lives in the hearts of 
all saints a constant presentation [7 e. making 
present—M.] of the end, and this is right; for 
the coolness with which we now reflect and con- 
sider and remove the last day to an indefinite 
distance, is rather a consequence of lukewarm 
faith, of love grown cool.— 

V. 10. We learn from this word, as we do here 
from James, that Job did really live like Noah, 
Daniel and all the prophets, and that the history 
of his sufferings is not a didactic poem, but genu- 
ine history. At that time indeed most people 
had only heard of him, for reading was then the 
prerogative of the learned, and even these had 
only in rare instances all the books of Holy 
Writ. Have we indeed read the book of Job 
aright? “A word, a man”—this [German] 
proverb alas has almost ceased to be true, and 
keeping one’s word has fearfully decreased 
among men, because lightness has increased. 
Would that it could be said everywhere at least 
“A Christian, a word” [ἡ 6. a Christian, who 
pledges his word, should attach to it the sanctity 
of an oath.—M. ]. 

JAKoBI:—Swearing is also still common 
amongst us and in order to guard against its 
abuse, Christian authorities have taken the oath 
under their supervision and, as it were, under 
their protection. But that oaths are so often 
required by the authorities, that most people, if 
required, take them lightly and thoughtlessly, 
that they are eager to take an oath in order to 
gain perchance some little advantage, that so 
many oaths and oathlike phrases are heard in 
common life, that the simple yea and nay with- 
out the confirmation of an oath have in many 
things and with many men almost lost their 


CHAP. V. 7-20. 


147 


power and value, all these are so many sad and 
suspicious symptoms of wide-spread untruthful- 
ness and unreliability. 


ViEDEBANDT:—Patience in view of the blessed 
future in store for them, strengthening the heart 
against the temptation to impatience and mur- 
muring, and particularly to a vengeful groaning 
against the oppressor, this is the task of the fol- 
lowers of Christ and of the saints of God whose 
life bears testimony to God, who never leaves His 
own, in patience and hope that is not de- 
ceived. 


NeanpER:—Every word should be to the 
Christian what an oath is to others; there is no 
need of oaths, therefore, among true Christians, 
because each holds his word sacred and all recip- 
rocate among themselves the assurance that the 
word of each is tantamount to an oath. Thus it 
ought to be in a truly Christian congregation, 
wherein all mutually know one another as genu- 
ine Christians. 


HEvBNER (on wy. 7, 8):—A passage for the eccle- 
sia pressa, militans.— 

(V.10). Examples are peculiarly effective to 
strengthen us in suffering. They show us 1, the 
possibility of endurance, of victory by means of 
the strength of God; 2, the glory, the reward of 
those who have ended their warfare. 

Lisco (on vv. 7, 11):—What exhorts us Chris- 
tians to be patient in tribulation? 

V.12. Swear not lightly !— 


Porusszky (on vv. 7-9). The coming of the 
Lord in the light of our time. (on vy. 10, 11). 
Our gain from the sufferings of Christ (!!)—(on 
v. 12). Veracity the result of the fear of God. 

Vv.7, 8. Text for the harvest feast [Thanks- 
giving Day in U. S.—M.]. Wour: Every earthly 
harvest-feast should renew our sense of the value 
of the hope of heaven. 

(vv. 7-11. Epistle for the 24th Sunday after 
Trinity in the Grand Duchy of Hesse and else- 
where). 

GEROK:—Three approved domestic remedies 
in adversity. 

BocKket :—Encouragement to the dignified en- 
durance of undeserved sufferings.—The power of 
a good example.— 

(On vy. 18-20). Joy and grief must be sancti- 
fied by religion.—The power of prayer under 
suffering.—Christian rejoicing in God.—The 
Christian on the sick-bed.—The sick should send 
for the presbyter and not always expect him to 
come uncalled.—On the gift of miracles in the 
primitive Church.—The cause of its disappear- 
ance.—Duty and blessing of mutual confession 
of sins.—The confessio auricularis a caricature of 
the brotherly confession in the time of James.— 
The forgiveness of sins a chief requisite for the 
sick.—Intercession a duty of Christian love. 1. 
How much belongs to it. 2. How much is want- 
ing in it!—Elias a teacher of prayer. We see in 
him a righteous man who 1, prays; 2, prays 
earnestly; 38, whose earnest prayer availeth 
much.—He that is saved himself should seek to 
gain others also.—The true Christian 1, is able; 
2, is bound to; 8, and will save souls from death. 
—Saving brotherly love: 1, how much it costs; 
2, how richly it recompenses. 

Starke: QuesneL:—The use of spiritual 


songs is greater than is thought. Ps. lxix. 31, 
82. 

CramMER:—It should be our first business in 
sickness to turn to God and have prayers offered 
for us, then send for the physician. 

STaRKE:—Maladies are the fruits of sins. 
Poor man, if thou hast spent the days of thy 
health in the service of sins, be not surprised if 
thy Creator takes hold of the rod of sickness in 
order to lead thee to better thoughts, Lev. xxvi. 
15 etc.—If you have offended or vexed others, be 
not ashamed to confess it. 

Hepincer:—The prayer of the righteous 
availeth much, yet not everything. For God 
often sees that the granting of our prayers would 
be contrary to His will, nor salutary to ourselves, 
and it is often a great blessing, although not gen- 
erally recognized, that God refuses to grant our 
requests. 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9. 

STaRKE :—God is so good that He does not al- 
ways keep His power to Himself, but often equips 
also His children with it, Phil. iv. 18. 

QuUESNEL:—God gives us fruitful seasons and 
they are kept up by prayer, Acts. xiv. 17. 

SrarkeE:—As the salvation of the soul is infi- 
nitely more precious than that of the body, so 
much the more is God pleased if we do more for 
our neighbour in the concerns of his soul than in 
those of his body, Heb. iii. 18. 

HeEpDINGER :— Be not more merciful to thy neigh- 
bour’s ox and house than to his precious soul. 
That thou pullest out of a well, this, if on fire, thou 
puttest it out, but thou dost not counsel his soul 
in brotherly reproof though it fall into hell and - 
burn in the most dreadful flames of sin. Those 
who love God promote also their neighbour’s 
salvation and lead the blind on an even path, 1 

Thess. v. 14. 

Lanai op.:—Teachers are bound first and 
mostly to observe that which is the duty of ail 
Christians, to wit, the real instruction of their 
hearers, 2 Tim. ii. 24.—Hearers are greatly ho- 
noured if God counts them worthy to become also 
the spiritual fathers of spiritual children, 1 Thess. 
γ. 11. If a woeis uttered on those who ruin 
others (Matth. xviii. 7), what will be the reward 
of grace to those who have been the instruments 
of God in the conversion of others! Dan. xii. 3. 
—Blessed is the man who is ready to be admon- 
ished and to be speedily turned from his error. 
He who thinks that in this respect others have 
no right to speak to him, robs himself of the 
blessing which he might obtain through others. 

Stier:—Human song is of itself good and 
noble. The same God, who gave to the fowls of 
the air the voice with which they unconsciously 
praise Him, gave song to man. We remember 
how e. g. Luther rightly extols the science and 
gift of song. Who has received it, let him rejoice, 
who lacks it, let him seek, if possible, to waken 
it, for it is a good gift of the Creator which gene- 
rally belongs to human nature.—Would that our 
present presbyteries did consist of men who 
understood something more than to keep accounts! 
[Stier is a Presbyterian—M. ]—Every Christian 
should be to his brother Christian a priest who 
receives the confession and dispenses the absolu- 
tion.—(vv. 19, 20). The greatest want and the 
greatest work of faith.—The Lord alone can help, 
deliver, and save the souls. But He does it and 


148 


uses for that purpose instruments of His power, 
vessels of His grace. Hence the Scripture hesi- 
tates not to attribute to vs miserable sinners the 
salvation of our fellow sinners. The Apostle 
labours to save some among His people, Rom. xi. 
14. To Timothy, the bishop, he promises: ‘In 
doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them 
that hear thee.” 1 Tim. iv. 16. In like manner 
he refers to a wife that may save her husband, 
and to a husband that may save his wife, 1 Cor. 
vii. 16. Yes, brethren, we may save one another, 
help one another from death to life: this is truly 
a great, the greatest and most precious promise 
of the rich grace of God to our poor soul. 

JaKkospi:—Among our Christian brethren of 
another communion, from whom separated three 
hundred years ago for liberty’s and conscience’ 
sake, the use of anointing with oil, recommended 
in our text, has been retained, and a devout sick 
man among them cannot rest until he has re- 
ceived this extreme unction at the priest’s hands. 
Now although we cannot help seeing in this prac- 
tice a complete misapprehension of these words 
of Holy Writ and a lamentable superstition, have 
we not, we ask, gone similarly astray, while 
there continues among us the sad eyil habit of 
celebrating the Lord’s Supper in so unconscious 
a state and of considering the taking of it imme- 
diately before death to be necessary, after the 
Holy Table had often before been unfrequented 
for years? 

Nreanver:—To excite more than one to repent- 
ance of a single sin, and thus to pave his way 
towards obtaining the forgiveness of one sin, is 
to. draw him away from the whole sinful bias of 
his life and to restore in him the state of a new, 
Divine life. Thereby many sins, which plunged 
him into his former course, are covered. 

Viepespannt:—Pray for one another. Such a 
precept is not found in the catechism of worldly 
friendship. Alas, how much ungodly friendship. 
It is like thorn-hedges which have grown the one 
into the other, united as it were in order to pierce 
and to tear. Noxious bind-weed!—while the 
soul is tied, prayer is tied also. Patience in suf- 
fering flows from hope for joys. 

von GERLACH: (y. 13).—Sadness and gladness 
are alike dangerous to the Christian; the devil 
takes advantage of every strong emotion to draw 
him away from God. Prayer and praise act like 
weapons against him,— 

Hevubner (vy. 13):—The value of spiritual 
songs as compared with worldly songs (v. 15). 
Faith is the soul of prayer: without that it is faint 
and dead.—Prayer is one of the most glorious 
expression of free-will.—We also, like Elias, may 
pray for temporal things—(vv. 19, 20). The in- 
finite value of a human soul.— 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JAMES. 


Lisco: (vv. 13-18).—Of the abuse and the right 
use of the name of God.—Several Christian rules 
of life.—Prayer 1, in all the situations of life, 2, 
especially with the sick, 3, availeth much.—(vv. 
19, 20). Loving care for the conversion of sin- 
ners.—The blessed occupation of saving souls: 
1, the motives that should prompt us; 2, the 
manner how we should set to work; 3, the bless- 
ing that attends it. 


PorusszKy:—True cheerfulness.—Faith gives 
health.—Of the fruit of prayer.—The conversion 
of sinners the most laudable work of faith. — 


[V. 10. Jonrin:— History sacred and secular 
shows us men naturally as weak as we are, liable 
to the same temptations of vanity, conceit, pride, 
sensual affections, fear, wrath, envy and malice, 
yet conquering these foes to their salvation. 
They had as quick a sense of pleasure and pain, 
of love and aversion, of profit and loss, of plenty 
and poverty, of honour and dishonour, as we; 
and yet they overcame the world by their faith, 
and by the influence of true religion upon their 
minds. They had indeed the Divine assistance 
to strengthen their infirmity ; and so may we, if 
we seek it as they did. 


V. 11. ΒΡ. Sanperson:—Job held out in his 
patience under his great trial unto the last: and 
God out of pity and in His tender mercy towards 
him, heaped comforts upon him at the last in 
great abundance. It would be well worthy of 
our most serious meditation, to consider both 
what by God’s grace he did, and how by God’s 
mercy he sped. His example in the one would 
be a good pattern to us of patience: and his ne- 
ward in the other a good encouragement for con- 
solation. This we may rest upon as a most per- 
fect truth, that if we do our part, God will not 
fail on His. 


V. 14. Neparim p. 40,1. ‘‘Rabba, as often 
as he fell sick, forbade his domestics to mention 
it for the first day: if he did not then begin to 
get well, he told his family to go and publish it 
in the highways, that they who hated him, might 
rejoice: and they that loved him, might intercede 
with God for him.” 

Raper Simeon in Sepher Ha Chayim said: 
‘‘What should a man do, who goes to visit the 
sick? Ans. He who studies to restore the health 
of the body, should first lay the foundation in the 
health of the soul.”” The wise men have said, ‘* No 
healing is equal to that which comes from the 
word of God and prayer.” Rabbi Phineas, the son 
of Chamma, has said, ‘‘When sickness or dis- 


-ease enters into a man’s family, let him apply to 


a wise man, who will implore mercy in his be- 
half.” —M. }. 


ΩΣ ἀρ Νὴ ἘΔ wie ie 


eh τ. ray 
AG aree Pal ee a 
j Po eon iy vf pea Cry 

( bs ‘Whe Ἢ ie 


ene ae) ee “eth 
; py. Ἷ fe iss ΠΝ : i a) Ἢ ᾿ anti δῶν q 
ae ἀμ ὶ ἱ 


ap id ey ἦν 


Wines ek hs ee ΠΝ 


vie pat i sa ὯΝ 
ὶ ΠΝ iu at cin eat aN 
ἤν 1) γέρε ἈΠῈ 
ἣν eee Ἃ 


Nil, 


he κι, Hike ABS Yeibe 
rt ἢ ye inte ΤΩΡ. 


ἐξ ἣν τ 
ΑΚ] x : yes ΕΝ αν 
era 4 i ’ at sis an γ ὧν votes Wve 
PN As, γ ἐν 
fo} 4 * ry 
7 i 


Bin ἯΙ 


aianaute aeayet, 


AN 


f, 
bon es Sait nat ub 


ἡ ΒΝ ν ὶ oa he 
᾿ ΟΣ ar ; ἴῃ 4, 
ΤΉΝ ἘΣ era 


Π ἦ 
εν “-ς 


κι Wee a A At oe ἀνα ἀν. 
͵ ἡ τολλαν BO EN ων 


“yi 


THE 


EPISTLES GENERAL OF PETER. 


BY 


A. te 
G. F. Ὁ. FRONMULLER, Ph. D., 


PASTOR AT KEMNATH, WURTEMBERG. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND REVISED GERMAN EDITION, WITH 
ADDITIONS ORIGINAL AND SELECTED, 


BY 


J. ISIDOR MOMBERT, D.D., 


RECTOR OF 8T. JAMES’S CHURCH, LANCASTER, PA. 


NEW YORK: 
CHARLES SCRIBNER, & CO., 654 BROADWAY. 
1867. 


ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867, by 
CHARLES SCRIBNER, 


In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District 
of New York. 


Stereotyped by 
JAS. B. RODGERS, 
PHILADELPHIA, 


ones anne e Rene Renee eee eeneweme 


THE 


FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


INTRODUCTION. 


21. LIFE AND CHARACTER OF THE APOSTLE. 


Srmon Peter, son of Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17; John i. 42, xxi. 16), and brother of Andrew (Matt. 
x. 2; John i. 41), was born at Bethsaida, a village on the coast of the sea of Galilee (John 1. 44), 
where in those days many receptive minds were animated by a desire for the advent of the Mes- 
siah. He owned a house at Capernaum (Matt. viii. 14; Luke iv. 38), was married there, and fol- 
lowed the trade of a fisherman (Matt. iv. 18; Mark i. 16; Luke v. 2). Andrew, his brother, a 
disciple of John the Baptist, who had believed his teacher’s word, “Behold the Lamb of God,” 
and thereupon had become a disciple of Jesus, told him the glorious discovery he had made, and 
took him to Jesus. On his first acquaintance with the Searcher of hearts, he received the surname, 
Cephas, Peter, the man of rock (John i. 42). This circumstance partly denotes his natural dis- 
position, and partly a prediction of what, on the foundation of that disposition, grace would make 
of him, His fiery temperament, his quick resoluteness, his fearless courage, and his unreserved 
candour, were to be purified, glorified and confirmed by his love of Jesus, and by the power of the 
Holy Ghost. Thus only could he become a rocky foundation of the church of Christ (Matt. xvi. 
18). After sundry meetings and preparations, the Lord attached him to the number of his per- 
manent disciples. The miraculous blessing which is recorded in Luke vy. 1, etc., and made Peter 
deeply conscious of his own unworthiness and of our Lord’s exaltation and holiness, was the 
turning point in his career. His call to the Apostolate is narrated in Matt. iv. 18-20, and Luke 
v.10, 11. In the four catalogues enumerating the twelve apostles, he is invariably named first, 
Matt. x. 2; Mark iii. 16; Luke vi. 14; Acts i. 13. His full resignation to the Lord, and his 
deeper insight of his Divine Sonship, made him not only share with John and James their Mas- 
ter’s more intimate friendship (Mark v. 87; Matt. xxvi. 37), but also enjoy a special preference 
over the rest of the apostles (Matt. xvi. 18, 19). Every where he appears as first among the 
apostles, but only as first among equals, placed not above, but on a level with them. (cf. Matt. 
xviii. 18; John xx. 21; Luke viii. 45; ix. 32; John i. 42; xxi. 15; Actsi. 15; ii. 14; vil. 14; x.5; 
xv.7.) Among the other disciples he was clothed with the dignity of being their spokesman, (Matt. 
xvi. 16; xxvi. 33; xvii. 24,) without thereby having a claim to outward superiority, for all be- 
lievers were to regard each other as brethren and members under their one head, Christ (Matt. 
xxiii. 8; John xiii. 14). Besides the important and characteristic epochs of his life already men- 
tioned, we have the following: his walking on the sea, which was designed to make him clearly con- 
scious of the value of his own strength, in which he had so much confided (Matt. xiv. 29, ete.); 


his offence at the Passion of Jesus, when he undertook to censure and reprove his Master, while 
1 3 


4 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


the word of the keys of the kingdom was still ringing in his ears (Matt. xvi. 22. 19)—Again, his 
wish to build tabernacles on the mount of transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 4); his believing obedience 
to a direction which ran wholly counter to reason, occasioned by a question concerning the tem- 
ple-tribute (Matt. xvii. 27); his inquiry as to the reward flowing from his following Christ (Matt. 
xix. 27); his refusal to allow Jesus to wash his feet, hastily followed by the opposite extreme, 
“Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head” (John xii. 8, etc.); his promise to go 
with the loved Master into prison and death; his asseveration rather to die than deny his Lord 
[Matt. xxvi. 35], arising from reliance on his own strength and disregard of the words of Jesus, 
followed by the deep fall of his threefold denial (Matt. xxvi. 31-35. 58. 69, etc.). The wilful de- 
fence of his Master with the sword (John xvii. 10. 11); his tearful repentance after meeting the 
look of Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 75; Mark xiv. 72); his hurrying forth to the tomb of the risen Saviour, 
who had appeared to him before the other disciples (Luke xxiy. 34; 1 Cor. xv. 5); the loving 
zeal with which heanticipated the others in greeting the Master on the shore of the lake (John 
xxi. 7), where Jesus foretold him his destiny (John xxi. 18, etc.); his reply to the Redeemer’s 
question, “Lovest thou me?” and his restoration to the pastoral office by the charge, “ Feed my 
lambs, feed my sheep.” (John xxi. 15, etc.) 

In the first twelve chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, Peter appears as the chief organ of 
the Church at Jerusalem. (Acts i. 15; ἢ. 14). He is the spokesman of the other Apostles on the 
day of Pentecost, and preaches a mighty sermon on repentance, which pierces the hearts of three 
thousand hearers like a fiery arrow. He multiplies the number of believers both by the working 
of miracles, and the victorious power of the Gospel. (Chap. 111. 4; v. 15; ix. 34. 40). He deems it 
joy to endure the ignominy of Christ; and suffers neither threatenings nor ill treatment to make 
him falter in confessing the name of Jesus. (Ch. iv. 8; v. 29). He joins John in carrying the Gos- 
pel to Samaria (ch. viii. 14), and the coast regions of the Mediterranean. (Ch. x. 23). He is the 
first Apostle, who, in consequence of a vision with which he was honoured, received Gentiles into 
communion of the Christian Church. (Ch. x. 34). He defends this measure against the reproaches 
of the Jewish Christians, and protects the Gentile Christians from the heavy yoke of the Mosaic 
Law. (Ch. xi. 1, οἷο; xv. 7, etc.). If, under the impulse of the moment, he was carried away 
into a course of action which contradicted those principles (Gal. 11.12), he suffered himself by the 
correction of Paul the Apostle, to abandon the transient wavering of the new position he had 
taken. After the beheading of James the Apostle, Herod Agrippa cast Peter into prison, whence 
he was miraculously delivered by an angel. (ch. xii. 1.). After a brief absence, (ch. xii. 17), sub- 
sequent to the death of his enemy, he reappears at Jerusalem (ch. xv. 7) and declares, with a view 
to settling the dispute between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, that circumcision and the ob- 
servance of the ceremonial law ought not to be exacted as necessary to the justification and sal- 
vation of believers, This event falls into the year 50 A. D. Since, in the subsequent account 
of the transactions at Jerusalem, recorded in the book of Acts, Peter ceases to be mentioned, we 
may conclude that his subsequent sphere of jabour had called him away from there. His abode at 
Antioch, and the incident already mentioned above, belongs to the time from A. D. 52 to 54 
(Gal. 11. 11-14.). It is clear, from 1 Cor. ix. 5, that Peter undertook various journeys for the 
spread of the kingdom of God. According to an ancient tradition in Origen, which originated 
probably in the title of his first Epistle, Peter is said to have preached the Gospel to the Jews 
scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia. He appears for 
some time to have had his sphere of labour in the Parthian empire, since he sends salutations from 
his co-elected at Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13), which is probably not to be understood of Rome, but of 
Babylon, in Chaldea. Many Jews were dispersed there, and Christianity was early diffused in 
those regions. According to Dionysius of Corinth, who wrote in the second half of the second 
century, and according to Ireneus and Eusebius, Peter and Paul are said to have been together at 
Rome, and to have conjointly founded the Church at that place; Eusebius narrates that the two 
Apostles had shared acommon martyrdom there; Peter was crucified with his head downwards, 

The fourteenth year of the reign of Nero, from the middle of October, A. D. 67, to the middle of 
A. D, 68, is mentioned as the year of the Apostle’s death. Tertullian and Lactantius also report 
the common execution of the two Apostles, whose tombs were shown at Rome as early as the end 
of the second century. See Winer 5, v. Petrus, The most ancient witness for the Apostle’s stay 


88. CONTENTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 5 


at Rome, is Papias, who refers to John (Eusebius, His¢. Hecl. iii. 39; 11. 15). With these early 
testimonies to support us, we refuse being misled by the critics (Spanheim, Baur, Schwegler, 
and others), who dispute Peter’s stay at Rome. With reference to the Apostle’s sphere of labour, 
we have still to mention the circumstance that, (as we learn from Gal. ii. 9), Paul and the pil- 
lars among the first Apostles gave to each other the right hand of fellowship at the apostolic 
council of Jerusalem, in token that Paul would recognize as his peculiar vocation, and carry out 
the mission among the Gentiles, while they would act in like manner with regard to the mission 
among the Jews. Peter is particularly named, as having had confided to him the Gospel of the 
circumcision (Gal. 11. 7. 8), for which he would seem to have been peculiarly fitted, on account of 
the national peculiarities which were so strongly stamped upon his character. Of him, as the Apos- 
tle of the circumcision, it may consequently be presupposed that he would move much on the 
foundation of the Old Testament, that he would set his testimony of Christ and the salvation that 
is in Him in the light of the Old Testament, and that he would lay stress on the oneness of both Tes- 
taments; while, as the immediate disciple of our Lord, as the witness of His entire ministerial ac- 
tivity and history, and as His favourite Apostle, he would often refer to the words of that beloved 
Master to whom he was so ardently and devotedly attached. We shall see whether the event 
confirms these pre-suppositions, 


22. SCOPE OF THE EPISTLE. 


“When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren,” Luke xxii. 82. Acting on this, his Mas- 
ter’s charge, Peter wrote to the strangers of the dispersion. He indicates the design of his writing 
himself, in chap. v. 12: “I have written briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true 
grace of God, wherein ye stand.” They were already converted, believing Christians, who needed 
not so much a testimony that laid the foundation, as one that was edifying and confirmative 
(ἐπιμαρτυρεῖν), who required comfort in their tribulation and encouragements to a holy life. The 
sifting period of believers had partly come already, and was partly approaching; the roaring of the 
lion that threatened to devour the faithful, was already heard. On this account, the Apostle abounds 
in exhortations to vigilance and soberness, to right preparation and readiness, to fidelity in con- 
fession and life, and endeavours to cast the bright beams of hope of the approaching day of glory 
into the night of suffering they were about to encounter. He would have them triumph over the 
sufferings of this present time, with a stedfast look on Christ and their heavenly inheritance. 
The testimony of Christ is richly interwoven with such repeated encouragements. The sequel 
will show that Dogmatics and Ethics do not occur separately in this Epistle, but are often di- 
rectly conjoined, and frequently present a quick, even a bold transition from the one to the other. 
(cf. ch. 11. 21, etc.; iii. 18, ete; iv. 1, etc.). 


23. CONTENTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 


The Title and Salutation of consolation (ch. i. 1, 2), is followed by the exordium, as basis 
of the argument (ver. 3-12), gratitude for God’s saving grace to Christians. The hope of the 
heavenly inheritance, prepared for them by Christ, should raise them above all temporal suffering. 
They might measure the greatness of their salvation by the fact that it had been the object of the 
anxious longing, and diligent search of the prophets, and that even the blessed angels of heaven 
were looking with profound admiration on this mystery. The entire subsequent contents of the 
Epistle rest and move on the basis of their possession of salvation and hope. With reference to the 
state of regeneration, which is presupposed in believers, exhortation and consolation [παραίνεσις and 
mapaxAnovc.—M. ], appear as leading tendencies from ch.i. 13, onwards. The first part of the Epistle 
comprises ch. 1.13 toii.10. The general exhortation to become ever more firmly grounded in hope, 
and on that account, also, in a holy conversation, ch. i. 14-16, to walk in the fear of God, ver. 17- 
21, to persevere in brotherly love, ver. 22-25, which is again founded on regeneration, ver. 
23. The same idea governs the exhortation to grow in the new life, wherein they stand, and to 
remove whatever hinders or destroys that growth, and more particularly the love of the brethren, 
ch. ii. 1-3. Whereas that growth is designed to be not only individual, but contemplates the found- 


6 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


ing of a holy people of God, it is followed by a description of the glory of the Divine edifice, into 
which they were to suffer themselves to be builded more and more. (Ch. ii. 4-10). At ch, 11. 11, 
the apostle passes to the second part, which continues to ch. iv. 6. It contains particular exhor- 
tations to Christians, adapted to the circumstances in which they were then placed. As 
strangers, they should be so much the more dutiful to authority. (Ch. ii. 13-17). Servants were, 
with constant regard to the example of Christ, to exhibit self-denying obedience to their masters, 
(Ver. 18-25). Wives should be subject to their husbands in simplicity, quietness, and meekness 
(ch. iii. 1-6); while husbands were to treat their wives with consideration and affection. (Ch. 11. 
7). Then follows an exhortation addressed to all to the practice of mutual affection and brotherly 
kindness, and of patience and gentleness toward unbelievers. (Ch. 11. 8 to iv. 6). The exhortation is 
enforced by the consideration of the example of Christ, His sufferings and death, His descent into 
the nether world, His resurrection and ascension. (Ch. iii. 17-22). From Christ’s suffering for us is 
derived the double duty of patient endurance and of being dead unto sin. They were not to endea- 
your to avoid suffering, by joining in the vicious practices of the Gentiles, else they would, with 
them, be exposed to the judgment of God. (Ch. iv.1-6). The ¢hird part (ch. iv. 7—v. 11), treats 
first of the inward union of Christians in the world, without regard to their relations to unbelievers. 
In view of the end of all things, the Apostle exhorts Christians to prayer, to brotherly love and 
its exhibitions, to an obliging disposition, and to conscientiousness in the administration of 
offices of trust. In the second section of this part of the Epistle, we have a new exhortation to 
readiness of enduring afflictions, which treats the matter from a point of view different from ch. 1]. 
21, ete.; iii, 14, ete., and affords proof that this was the main object contemplated in this Epis- 
tle. They were to regard suffering as necessary to the imitation of Christ, as a refining process, 
and as a judgment by which the Church of Christ must be sifted according to indispensable laws 
of the kingdom of heaven. (Ch. iv. 12-19). In the third section, the Apostle addresses the elders 
in particular, exhorting them rightly to feed the flock of Christ, and to be ensamples to the flock 
(ch. v. 1-4); then the younger to submit themselves to the elder (ver. 5), and lastly, he entreats 
all to cleave to humility, meekly to bow under the hand of God, to remain in the faith, to be 
vigilant, and firmly to resist the devil (ver. 5-9). The conclusion contains a promise full of 
strong consolation, a remark on the design of his writing, with salutations and the benediction. 


#4. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EPISTLE. 


Luther justly designates the Epistle of St. Peter as one of the most noble of the New Testa- 
tament. It exhibits a wealth of thought, a dignity, a fervour, a humility and love, a believing 
hope, a readiness for the advent of Christ, in exact harmony with the individuality of the 
Apostle. His conception of Christianity as the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament 
(ch. 1. 10-12), in perfect agreement with his speeches in the book of Acts (ch. 111, 18-25), his treat- 
ment of Christians as those in whom is realized the idea of the theocratic nation (1 Pet. 1. 9; v. 
4. 5), and his uniform plan of tracing back his doctrine of the Person and work of Christ to the 
Old Testament, show him as the Apostle of the circumcision, whose sphere of labour lay among 
the Jews, who viewed the Gospel chiefly from the side of its oneness with the Old Covenant. 
His numerous references to the sayings of our Lord, which will be authenticated below, prove 
him to have been the ear-witness of the words of Jesus, to whom his soul was attached with the 
fullest devotion and resignation. The description of Paul, as the Apostle of faith, of John as 
the Apostle of love, and of Peter as the Apostle of hope, may easily be misunderstood, but it is well- 
founded, if regarded as indicative of the predominant aim of their respective writings. Weiss 
has well shown that with Peter hope occupies a central position, that it governs the range of his 
thoughts, and gives it a peculiar, distinctive impress. Compare particularly ch. 1. 3. 7. 9. 
13; iii. 9-15; iv. 13; v. 4. It is seen throughout the Epistle that his eye is firmly fixed upon 
the coming of Christ and the glory in store for believers. This agrees perfectly with the quick 
and fiery character of Peter, and has been interestingly developed by Weiss. “ His natural ten- 
dency to look forward to the end of perfection, and to anticipate it at least ideally, was, in the 
Apostle, glorified and refined into Christian hope by the influence of the Holy Ghost.” 
With respect to manner of statement, it is, its great simplicity notwithstanding, very pregnant. 


25. READERS OF THE EPISTLE. 7 


forcible and lively; sentences and thoughts are manifoldly intertwined and connected by partici- 
pial constructions, while sudden and abrupt transitions, which are of frequent occurrence, reflect 
the Apostle’s mind. His mode of doctrinal statements concerning Christ and sin, is not as fully de- 
veloped as in Paul, and lacks the fundamental views which are peculiar to the latter (e.g. concern- 
ing the believer’s communion of life with Christ, concerning the sinner’s justification by faith in 
the merits of Jesus), but their germs and beginnings are unmistakable in the Epistle. (Cf. Schmid, 
Bibi. Theology and Weiss). The latter, after a careful examination of the degree of affinity be- 
tween the Epistles of Peter and Paul, arrives at the conclusion that Peter’s language and mode 
of instruction are wholly independent of Paul, and rich in exclusive peculiarities, that they con- 
tain not less than sixty ἅπαξ λεγόμενα. Of the parallel passages in the Epistle to the Romans, 
and the First Epistle of Peter, he says that they can by no means be considered accidental; 
that while it must be assumed that the one had read and freely used the other’s Epistle, it seems 
more probable that Paul had read the First Epistle of Peter, when he wrote the Romans, than the 
reverse. The most important passages to be considered in this respect are:—Rom. xii. 3-8, 1 
Pet. iv. 10; Rom. xii. 9-13, 1 Pet. 1.22; Rom. xii. 10, 1 Pet. 11.17; Rom. xii. 14, etc., 1 Pet. 
i. 8. 9-12; Rom. xii. 1-6, 1 Pet. 1. 18. 14.17; Rom. xin. 11. 12, 1 Pet. iv. 7, 1.9; that the 
originality belongs to Peter. The same remarks apply to the correspondencies between Ephesians 
and 1 Peter. Compare 1 Pet.i. 3, Eph. i.3; 1 Pet. ii. 18-20, Eph. vi. 5-9; 1 Pet. iii. 1-7, 
Eph. v. 22-33; 1 Pet. 1.1, Eph. i. 4; 1 Pet. v. 3, Eph.i.11; 1 Pet.i. 1,.Eph. i. 18; 1 Pet. πὶ: 
O, Eph, 1.12; 1 Pet. 15, Eph.i.19; 1 Pet. ii. 22, Eph. i. 20.21; 1 Pet. 1. 14. 15, Eph. ii. 3; 
1 Pet. i. 18, Eph. ii, 12; 1 Pet. π|. 18, Eph. 11. 18; 1 Pet. 11. 5. 6, Eph. ii. 20-22; 1 Pet. ni. 2, 
Eph. ii. 21; 1 Pet. i. 12, Eph. i. 5.10; 1 Pet. 1.15, Eph. iv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 10, Eph. iv. 7. 11. 
12; 1 Pet. 11, 19, iv. 6, Eph. iv. 8-10; 1 Pet. 1. 14-19, Eph. iv. 17-24; 1 Pet. 11. 12, i. 16, 
iv. 14, Eph. iv. 25-32; 1 Pet. iv. 3, Eph. v.5; 1 Pet. v. 5, Eph. v. 21; 1 Pet. 1.18, Eph. vi. 
5-9; 1 Pet. v. 8. 9, Eph. vi. 10-20. “In all those passages,” says Weiss, “which render a cri- 
tical opinion possible, all goes in favour of the dependence of the Epistle to the Ephesians.” A 
writer in the German Magazine for Christian Science and Christian Life, objects to the foregoing 
conclusion, particularly in regard of the Epistle to the Romans, and remarks on Rom. xu. 1; 1 
Pet. 11. 5, that the Pauline figure is more lucid and simple, and on that account more original; 
that the same is true of Rom. xii. 3-8; cf. 1 Pet. iv. 10. Also Rom. xii. 14-19; ef. 1. Pet. m. 
8-12; and Rom. xii. 1-6; οἵ, 1 Pet. 11. 13, favour the originality of Paul. Rom. ix. 33 also seems 
to be original, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 6. The problem must be regarded as unsolved. There are only a few 
passages in the Epistle of James resembling those in St. Peter, e. g. Jas. 1.2; 1 Pet.i.6; Jas. 1. 
10; iv. 6. 7.10; 1 Pet. 1. 24; v.5. Some of them contain quotations from the Old Testament; 
there is only one passage (Jas. iv. 7. 10) which renders a relationship to 1 Pet. v. 8, etc., proba- 
ble. Peter may have read and made free use of the Epistle of James. 


¢5. READERS OF THE EPISTLE. 


The believers, to whom the Epistle is addressed (ch. i. 1), were scattered over almost the 
entire peninsula of Asia Minor. The ancient fathers, with the exception of Augustine and Cas- 
siodorus, thought that the ἐκλεκτοῖς related to Jewish Christians. This opinion was prevalent 
until modern times: several commentators added only the modification that those Churches con- 
tained also Gentile Christians, who were, however, in the minority. On the other hand, Steiger, 
followed by Wiesinger, tried to prove, in his commentary, that the majority in those churches 
were, at all events, Gentiles. Weiss produces, however, convincing arguments that the Epistle 
was intended for Jewish Christians; he justly affirms: 

a. That διασπορά (ch. 1. 1) is a terminus technicus, and denotes the totality of Jews outside of Pa- 
lestine, scattered through heathen countries (Jas. i. 1; 2 Macc. i, 27; Judith y. 19), and cannot 
be taken metaphorically. 

ὃ. That the Epistle is entirely permeated by views taken from the Old Testament; 1t contams 
numerous Old Testament figures and termini technici, allusions to the religious institutions and 
the history of the Old Covenant. Compare ch. i. 10-12; iii. 5. 6; iii. 20. Peter frequently inter- 
twines quotations from the Old Testament into his language, without designating them as such, 


8 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 

and mostly in connections where it is of essential importance that they should be recognized as 
Scripture (ch. i. 24; ii. 7. 9. 10, and other passages). No portion of the New Testament is 
so thoroughly interwoven with quotations from and allusions to the Old Testament. (It con- 
tains, in 105 verses, twenty-three quotations, while the Epistle to the Ephesians has only seven, 
and that to the Galatians, only thirteen). 

c. That this peculiarity agrees entirely with the fact that it was Peter’s vocation to be the Apos- 
tle of the circumcision. The mode of speech which he took from the Old Testament, must have 
particularly recommended him to Jewish Christians. The passages quoted in favour of Gentile 
Christians, prove just the opposite, 6. g. ch. iii. 6; 1.14.18; 1.9.10. See the Commentary on 
these passages. The same holds good of ch. iv. 3. It would be curious, indeed, that Peter should 
reproach former Gentiles with having done the will of the Gentiles. The expression ἀθεμίτοις 
εἰδωλολατρείαις only seems to relate to Gentiles; but this presents no ob8tacle on the supposition 
that those Churches contained individual Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians formed, 
doubtless, the substance and main stem of those Churches (cf. Acts 11. 9; xi. 19), until after the 
third missionary journey of the Apostle, the element of Gentile Christians became more impor- 
tant in those parts of Asia Minor. (Weiss, p. 116, 116). 


26. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


1 Pet. iv. 17 ought to convince the most undecided that the Epistle was written, at all 
events, before the destruction of Jerusalem. This is equally evident from the entire presupposed 
historical situation of the Epistle. Peter describes himself as the author at ch.i. 1; and as wit- 
ness of the sufferings of Christ, ch. v. 1; this is confirmed by the affinity which exists 
between the Epistle and Peter’s speeches in the book of Acts (cf. Acts 1. 32; im. 18; 1 
Pet. i. 10, etc.; Acts iv. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 4), and by the testimony of 2 Pet. 111. 1, even if the se- 
cond Epistle were not genuine. The author’s apostolic consciousness is involuntarily ex- 
pressed in passages like ch. i. 8, in the historical testimony of Jesus, and its application as an 
exemplar (ch. 11. 21, etc.; 1. 18, etc.). We have seen above that the contents and mode of state- 
ment agree with the Apostle’s portrait. Guerike calls particular attention to the harmony be- 
tween the tone of the Epistle and the sensuousness which is characteristic in Peter: “ Peter 
knew, indeed, from his own experience, better than any other, the weakness of the heart of man; 
for this reason his exhortations are both humane and evangelical, both forcible and gentle; for 
the same reason he recommends, with so much earnestness, the practice of constancy of faith, 
in humility and patience, with constant reference to the pattern and glory of Christ; this accounts 
also for his earnest exhortation to diligent vigilance, in precise proportion to the exalted condi- 
tion of believers, and especially for his touching and repeated recommendation of humility.” The 
same author notices the only slight intimation of Peter’s acknowledging Paul as a true Apostle (ch. 
v.12), the suppression of all personality and marked designedness with respect to his agreement with 
the Apostle of the Gentiles, and, lastly, the clearness, precision, and emphasis of Peter’s language. 
The most weighty external reasons support the genuineness of this Epistle. Eusebius testifies 
that the Epistle was used by Papias and Polycarp. Several passages in Polycarp’s Epistle to the 
Philippians confirm the testimony of Eusebius. Theodotus, the Valentinian, after the middle of 
the second century, cites passages from the Epistle (Clem. Alex. ἐκ τῶν Θεοδότου éxcrouat), « Ex- 
press testimony in favour of its genuineness, is found in Irenzus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexan- 
dria, and Origen. The Epistle stood already in the Old Syriac Peshito, and Eusebius mentions 
it among the Homologoumena. The new school of Tubingen, which rejects this Epistle on internal 
grounds, because it does not correspond with its premises, is, therefore, guilty of the most arbi- 
trary hypercriticism. “Among all the writers of Christian Antiquity, there is not one who 
doubted the genuineness of the Epistle, or had even heard of any doubts concerning it.” 


_(Qlshausen). “> Yh... Bigs) ᾿ 
( ) . ine Lowe . couse Ce. Ne, ol Sey, 


38. LITERATURE. 9 


27. DATE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE. 


Many circumstances in the Epistle refer its composition to an early date—e. g., the new- 
ness of the afflictions which the Churches had to endure, consisting less {n persecution than in 
reproaches (ch. iii, 16; iv. 12. 14); the astonishment of the Gentiles at the Christians abandon- 
ing their sinful practices (ch. iv. 4); the expectation that the Gentiles, on becoming better ac- 
quainted with the good conversation of Christians, would relinquish their enmity, which was 
founded on ignorance (ch. ii. 15; ii. 12; iii. 16). To this must be added the as yet undeveloped 
state of the constitution of the Church, in which the office of presbyter did apparently coincide 
with the free office of the elders of the Jewish congregation, which may be gleaned from the cir- 
cumstances that the πρεσβύτεροι of ch. v. 1, are contrasted with the νεώτεροι of ver. 5, while there 
is made no mention of any other ecclesiastical office; and again the predominance of the Jew- 
ish Christians in these Churches (see above), and especially the absence of an antithesis between 
legalism and true Christianity, beyond the slight allusion at ch. v. 2, must not be overlooked. 
Weiss, moreover, adduces, in this respect, the whole Petrine form of doctrine, which he regards 
as preliminary to the Pauline, as well as the peculiar freshness and energy of hope of the im- 
pending parousia of Christ. With regard to the latter, we must, in addition to the other reasons 
for the early composition of this Epistle, lay special emphasis on the circumstance, that it con- 
tains no allusion to a twofold parousia, such as we find in the synoptical Gospels and the Re- 
velation of St. John (v. pp. 97 and 53). On the supposition that Paul made use of the Epistle 
of Peter, and not the reverse (that Peter had seen the Epistle of Paul), and considering that Syl- 
vanus was in 53 A. D., still with Paul (Acts στ 52) Corsi] 9) 16 Thes:i:1 52) Thes 1 1} 
Weiss argues that the Epistle could hardly have been written before A. D. 54. Since Paul made 
his third missionary journey between 54 and 57 A. D., when he passed through Galatia and 
Phrygia, and remained two years at Ephesus, where he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, the 
date of the composition of this Epistle would fall into 54 or 55 A. D. Assuming, on the other 
hand, with the majority of commentators, that Peter had seen and made use of the Epistles of 
Paul, its date would belong to a much later period. Since, according to Hug and de Wette, 63- 
65 A. D. is the date of the Epistle to the Ephesians; the period 65-67, the year of Peter’s death, 
would be the date of the present Epistle. Thiersch gives the date 63 or 64 A. D., soon after the 
Epistle to the Hebrews had been forwarded. If it be objected to the date assigned by Weiss, as 
has been done by Wiesinger: Where did the Jewish Christian Churches, in Pontus, etc., come from 
as early as 54 or 55 A. D.? the answer should refer not only to Acts ii. 9, but also to ch. xi. 19, 
where mention is made of the wide dispersion of those who fled “in the persecution that arose 
about Stephen.” Paul had, as early as 45 and 51 A. D., visited those districts during his first and 
second missionary journeys. The First Epistle of Peter has no record of Churches already orga- 
nized, but makes mention of elect strangers of the dispersion. 


28 LITERATURE. 


Especially noteworthy are: Luther, Hzposition of the First Epistle of St. Peter, 1523.— 
Calvini Commentaru in omnes NV. T. epistolas—Gerhardi Comm. super priorem et posteriorem 
D, Petri epistolam, Jena, 1641.—Calovii Biblia ilustrata.—W. Steiger, The First Epistle of Pe- 
ter, 1832.—Huther, in Meyer’s Oritico-exegetical Comment. of the NV. T., 1852 [2d ed. 1859.}— 
Briickner’s Revision of De Wette’s Commentary, 1853.—Wiesinger, in the continuation of Olshau- 
sen’s Commentary, 1856 [3d ed. 1865]— Weiss, der Petrinische Lehrbegriff, 1856. 

Among the older practical works on this Epistle, we mention, besides, Bengel’s Gnomon, 
Roos, Brief Explanation of the two Epistles of Peter, 1798; H. Rieger’s Contemplations on the 
New Testament. 

Among the more modern, W. F. Besser’s Epistles of St. Peter Explained to Bible Classes, 1854, 
deserves special attention. 

[Among ritish authors, Archbishop Leighton on the First Epistle of Peter, 2 vols. 8vo., in 


10 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


Dene ee eae 


various editions, and Dr. John Brown’s Expository Lectures on the First Epistle of Peter, New 
York, Carters’, will be found most valuable, to which may be added the following :— 


1. The General Commentaries on the WHOLE Scriptures, by Poole, Henry, Goadby, 8. Clark, Scott, A. Clark, Mant, and 
D’Oyley; and on the New TESTAMENT by Hammond, Whitby, Guyse, Wells, Doddridge, Gilpin, Bloomfield, 
Alford, and Wordsworth. 
2. Commentaries and other works on the Apostolical Epistles, the Catholic Epistles, and the Epistle of St. Peter. 
a. An Exposition of all St. Paul’s Epistles, together with an Explanation of those other Epistles of the Apos- 
tles St. James, Peter, John, and Jude, by Davin Dickson, Professor of Divinity in the University of Glas- 
gow. Folio. London, 1659. 
δ. A Paraphrase and Notes on the Seven (commonly called) Catholic Epistles, attempted in imitation of Mr. 
Locke’s manner; to which are annexed several Critical Dissertations, by GEORGE Benson, D.D. 4to. 
London, 1756. 
c. A New Literal Translation from the Original Greek, of all the Apostolical Epistles; with a Commentary 
and Notes, philological, critical, explanatory, and practical, by James MacEniGHT, D.D. 4 vols. 4to. 
Edinb., 1795. 
d. Sermons on the First Epistle General of Saint Peter, by NicHoLas BYFIELp. Folio. London, 1637. 
e. A Brief Exposition of the First and Second Epistles General of St. Peter, by ALEXANDER Nisbet, Minister at 
Irwin. 12mo. London, 1658. 


᾿ 


In German. 
Joacuim LANGE, Mosaisches Licht und Recht. Halle, 1784. 
In French. 
Paraphrase sur les Epistres Catholiques, par Movs AMYRAUT. 8yo. Saumur, 1646. 
In Latin. 
a. Particularly the Annotata in the Critict Sacrv. 
b. In priorem B. Petri Apost. Canonicam Epistolam, eruditissimus Commentarius. Auctore D. JOANNE ac bi 
Regis Lovanii Professore. 8vo. Lovanii. 1658. 
¢. Epistolarum Cath. Septem. Grece, cum nova versione Latina ac scholiis grammaticis et criticis, opera Jo. B. 
Carpzovu. 8vo. Folio. Hale, 1790. 
d. D. Sam. Frep. Natu. Mort Prelectiones in Jacobi et Petri Epist. 8vo. Lipsice, 1794. 
e. Versio Latina Epistolarum, etc., perpetua annotatione illustrata a GODF. SIGISM. JASPIS. ii. tom. 8vo. Lip 
sie, 1797. ᾿ 
f. 8. Apost. Petri Ep. Cath. prior, perpetuo Comm. explicata, etc., per JAcoBUM LAURENTIUM. 4to. Campis, 
1640. 
g. Ὁ. Jo. SAL. SeMLERI Paraphrasis in Ep. 2 Petri et Jude, etc. 12mo. Hale, 1784. Idem: Paraphrasis im 
Ep.1 Petri. Hale, 1783. 
Besides many others of minor account.—M.] 


COMMENTARY. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


Cuaprer I. 1, 2. 


ANALYSIS :—Title and salutation of comfort, 


1 PETER, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers' scattered throughout Pontus, 


2 Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. 


Elect according to the foreknowledge of 


God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit,? unto obedience and sprinkling 
of? the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 


Verse 1. [| The German Version, in stricter conformity to the Greek, “To the elect strangers in the dispersion in.”—M.] 


Cod. Sin., omits ᾽Α oias.—M.] 


Verse 2. fi German, “in sanctification through the Spirit.” Greek, “in sanctification of the Spirit.”—M.] 


8 German “ with.”—M.] 


EXGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


lievers in Jesus. The final cause of this election 
is free grace, its end salvation, and its condition 


Verse 1.—On the meaning of Peter, see notes | penitent faith. Acts 111. 19; ii. 88. 21; 1 Pet. 1. 


on Matt. xvi. 18. 

Apostle, a messenger of Jesus Christ, speaking 
and acting in his Master’s name. The qualifica- 
tions necessary to the apostolic vocation may be 
learned from the speech of Peter at the election 
of an apostle. Acts i. 21, 22. They had to be the 
constant attendants of Christ during the whole 
of His ministerial career, as He said to the twelve: 
““Ye have been with me from the beginning,” 
Jno. xv. 27; cf. Lke. xxiv. 18, in particular, 
witnesses of His resurrection and ascension, Acts 
li. 83; iii. 15; v.32; x. 41. They had to tes- 
tify of the great facts of salvation and to found 
Churches, to teach and to preach, to exhort and 
warn, to threaten and rebuke, to intercede and to 
oversee, and to carry the message of the cross to 
Jews and Gentiles, Acts x. 89; iv. 19; 2 Cor. 
v. 20; Phil. i. 7. 17; Col. ii. 8. To this end they 
had been especially called and chosen, separated 
and sent forth by the Lord Himself and endowed 
with extraordinary gifts by the Spirit, Acts xiii. 
WOM jy. δὲ V1; i. 45 MK. παι. D7) 185) 1 Cor. 
Vio jan. xx. 22. 

Elect, in Peter’s sense of the word, are such 
as are incorporated in the chosen generation (ch. 
ii. 9) and belong to the purified people of God, 
to the children of Abraham who have become be- 


4; y. 10. The word is used in a different sense 
in Matt. xxii. 14; Eph. i. 4; Acts ix. 15. 

Strangers, παρεπιδήμοι denotes persons, re- 
siding with others for a short time in a strange 
place, not citizens, but denizens, cf. Gen. xlvii. 9; 
Ley. xxv. 28: Heb. xi. 18. Weiss would take it 
figuratively of the pilgrim-state of Christians 
on account of the next word, cf. i.17; ii. 11; 
but the explanation “to the elect denizens of the 
dispersion” is more simple. Such a compression 
of literal and figurative definitions so nearly re- 
lated in sound, would hardly be intelligible with- 
out some further definition. Judith vy. 20; 2 Mace. 
i. 27. 

Dispersion (διασπορά) was the current phrase 
used to designate Jews living in Gentile lands, 
i. 6. residing out of Palestine, cf. Jno. vii. 35; 
Jas. i. 1. This shows plainly who were the read- 
ers of the epistle: they were believing Jews, 
here and there joined by a few Gentile converts. 
This was the field confided to the care of Peter, 
Gal. ii. 7, while the sphere of Paul’s labours lay 
among the Gentiles. Origen, Jerome and Epipha- 
nius, testify that Peter was mainly engaged in 
preaching the Gospel to the Jews in the countries 
here specified. Such is the opinion of many 
among the more ancient commentators. 6. g. Hu- 

11 


12 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


sebius, Didymus, @icumenius, who are followed 
by Grotius, Calvin and others: (vide Introduc- 
tion). 

Pontus, the extreme north-eastern province 
of Asia Minor, so called from the Black Sea, on 
which it borders towards the North; it was there 
that Aquila, a companion of Paul probably found- 
ed a Christian Church. Acts xviii. 2. 

Galatia, westward of Pontus, derives its name 
from the Gauls, a Celtic tribe, which had left 
its seat on the left bank of the Rhine for Thrace 
and Greece and had afterwards gone as far as 
Asia Minor. Paul planted Christianity there. 
Acts xvi. 6. 

Cappadocia lies South of Pontus; Jews of 
Cappadocia were present at the first Christian 
Pentecost and heard the declaration of the great 
works of God. 

Asia describes the province, which under the 
Romans comprised the maritime districts of My- 
sia, Lydia and Caria with the interior Phrygia. 

Bythinia is the extreme north-western district 
of Asia Minor. 

Ver. 2—According to the foreknow- 
ledge of God, should be connected with elect: 
it denotes not mere prescience and precognition, 
the object of which is indeed not mentioned, but 
both real distinction and foredecreeing. So ch. i. 
20; Acts ii. 23. God knew such as are His from 
before the foundation of the world and ordained 
them unto salvation. cf. Jno. x. 14; Acts iv. 28; 
Rom. viii. 29; [““πρόγνωσις hie non preescientiam, 
sed antecedens decretum significat ut et Act. 11. 28: 
idem sensus qui, Eph. i. 4.”—Grotius.—M. ] 

In sanctification of the Spirit.—This re- 
lates, as well as the other parts of this verse, to 
election. The order, by which alone the Divine 
decree can effect its end in us, is this, that we are 
sanctified by the Spirit of God. So Paul in 2 
Thess. ii. 13: ‘God hath chosen you to salvation 
through [ἐν ἁγιασμῷ rvebwatoc.—M.] sanctifica- 
tion of the Spirit.” This expression comprises all 
the gracious influences of the Holy Ghost, from 
His first gentle knockings to the sealing of grace. 
The reference of the work of our salvation to the 
Holy Trinity, which is unmistakably implied in 
this verse, excludes the application of πνεῦμα to 
the spirit of man. 

[In Sanctification—Jesus Christ.—‘* Il vous a 
séparés effectivement d’avec eux, non pas en vous 
sanctifiant comme il fit le peuple d’ Israél au dé- 
sert, d'une sanctification externe et corporelle seu- 
lement, lorsqu ’il le fit arroser du sang de la victime, 
qui ratefia par sa mort Valliance de la loy; mais en 
vous consacrant dune sanctification intérieure et spi- 
rituelle lorsque par la vertu de sa vocation il vous a 
amenés a Vobéisance de son Hvangile et a recevoir 
Vaspersion du sang de Jesus Christ épandu pour Vé- 
tablissement de Valliance de grace en rémission des 
péchés.”—Amyraut.—M. } 

Obedience, in the sense of Peter, includes the 
two ideas, to believe revealed truth and to per- 
form the duties which it imposes on us. Obe- 
dience of the Divine commandments presupposes 
faith in their obligatoriness and the justice of 
God; faith claims obedience as its fruit, just as 
itself (7. e. faith), according to its inmost nature, 
is an act of obedience. Peter, according to his 
Old Testament stand-point, views both conjointly. 
ef. ch. ii. 7. 8; i. 14. 22; iii. 1; iv. 17; Acts iii. 


22.23; v. 32; with Paul the fundamental claims 
of faith and obedience become separate, Rom. x. 
5-9, without any misconception of the ethical ele- 
ment of faith, ch. x. 16. 21; xi. 80; 1. 5; ii. 8 
2 Thess. i. 8; 2 Cor. x. 5. 

Unto sprinkling of the blood of Jesus 
Christ,—/particyéc corresponding to the Hebrew 


verbs pit and m3 occurs only twice in the N. 


T., here and Heb. xii. 24. The altar of burnt 
offering, the altar of incense, the vail of the Most 
Holy place and the ark of the covenant (Ley. 1.8 ; 
v. 9; iv. 6. 7. 17. 18; xvi. 14-19) were sprinkled 
with blood in token that the holy vessels, which 
became, asit were, also infected with the poison of 
sin—(by the uncleanness of those who surround- 
ed them)—stood in need of purification. At the 
sacrifice of the covenant a two-fold sprinkling 
took place, viz.: that of the altar with one-half 
of the blood and that of the people with the other. 
Ex. xxiv. 6-8, cf. Heb. ix. 18-20. This implied 
not only that both needed purifying, but also that 
the altar and the people belonged together, and 
that the remission of sins might fall to the latter. 
But the sprinkling of the people did not take 
place until they had declared themselves ready to 
comply with all the demands of the Divine Law 
without any exception whatsoever. Ex. xxiv. 3. 
7; nor must the circumstance be overlooked that 
the sanctification of the unclean people unto com- 
munion with the Holy God must have gone be- 
fore, Ex. xix. 10. As in the Old Testament the 
sprinkling of blood followed upon the sanctified 
people engaging themselves to implicit obedience, 
so this passage maintains that the members of the 
covenant-people ofthe New Testament are elect un- 
to obedience and unto sprinkling of the blood of Je- 
sus. It is only by the obedience of faith and our 
firm purpose to subject ourselves to the claims of 
the Divine Law, that we are made partakers of 
the atoning virtue of the blood of Jesus. If we 
stand in God’s covenant of grace with the honest 
endeayour of doing His will, God is pleased to 
make us ever anew partakers of the virtue of the 
blood of Jesus, and to cover therewith-all the fail- 
ings and infirmities which still cleave to our obe- 
dience as well as to forgive us the sins which are 
still mingled with it, provided we repent of them 
and seek for peace. We do not attempt to deter- 
mine whether the words of our Lord at the insti- 
tution of the Holy Supper had an essentially de- 
termining influence on the view of Peter, (as 
Weiss, p. 273, assumes as certain) but its refer- 
ence to the conclusion of the covenant in the Old 
Testament is undeniable. [The three persons of 
the Holy Trinity céoperate, according to the 
Apostle, in the work of our salyation.—M. ] 

Grace is here nota Divine attribute, but a 
gift, as is apparent from its connection with peace, 
cf. ch. iv. 10; v. 10; iii. 7; 1.10.18. It is the 
gift of justification and sanctification, from which 
flows peace in, and with God and forthwith also 
peace among men, cf. Rom. i. 7; 2 Jno. ὃ; 
Jude 2. In the last passage as at 2 Pet. i. 2, oc- 
curs also πληνθυνθείη. The epistle of Nebuchad- 
nezzar written after his deliverance, Dan. iii. 31, 
has in the Greek translation of the LXX. an al- 
most identical introduction. The multiplying 
relates both to its virtue and to the feeling and 
taste thereof, cf. Rom. y. 5. 


@HAP. £1, 2: 


13 


[Wordsworth remarks: ‘This salutation of 
the Apostle from Babylon recalls to the mind the 
greeting sent forth from the same city to all its 
provinces, by the two Kings of two successive dy- 
nasties,—the Assyrian and the Medo-Persian— 
under the influence of the prophet Daniel, and 
otNer faithful men of the first dispersion. They 
proclaimed in their royal Epistles the supremacy 
of the One True God, the God of Israel. ‘ Nebu- 
chadnezzar, the King, to all the people, to you peace 
be multiplied.’ (εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη, Dan. iv.1). 
Darius the King wrote to all people, “ Zo you 
peace be multiplied,” (Dan. vi. 25). 

Daniel and the three children turned the hearts 
of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, and moved them 
to declare the glory of the true God in letters 
written ‘to all people.’ The apostle St. Peter 
now carries on the work of the ancient prophets, 
and writes an epistle from Babylon, by which he 
builds up the Christian Sion in all ages of the 
world (cf. 2 Peter i. 1. 2. and 1 Peteri. 13), and 
proclaims to all, ‘Peace be multiplied unto you.’ 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Peter refers to his apostleship, not with a 
view to making it aground of superiority to other 
teachers, but in order to remind his readers of 
the great responsibility attaching to, and conse- 
quent upon, the disregard of his exhortations and 
consolations. Because he is the ambassador of 
Christ, we should hear him as we would Christ 
Himself, cf. Lk. x. 16; 1 Thess. iv. 8. He calls 
himself an elder among elders, ch. v. 1.—Wher- 
ever no positive proof can be given of an imme- 
diate election and calling to and qualification for 
the apostolate as emanating from our Lord Him- 
self, its claimis unwarranted and untenable— 
This is also true where secular authority is allied 
to the spiritual office (cf. Matt. xx. 25-28) and 
where it is attempted to control the faith and con- 
science of men (cf. 2 Cor. i. 24; 1 Cor. iv. 1).— 
[The claims of Rome are illustrative of the second 
and third points, those of the Jrvingites of the 
first.—M. ] 

2. The Apostles were not vicegerents and 
representatives of Christ, much less the Pope of 
Rome. 

3. The glorious title and state of real Chris- 
tians, to be called ‘elect’. It is an unspeakable 
mercy to be selected from the mass of so many 
thousands of the lost, from the communion of 
their guilt and punishment, from the power of 
unbelief, sin and seduction. Distinguish be- 
tween “elect” and “called.” Calling reveals 
the decree of election. The end of election in 
the New Testament differs from that in the Old. 

4. The Christian’s real home is heayen; here 
below we are guests and strangers, as David con- 
fesses: ‘I am both, thy pilgrim, (here below) 
and thy citizen (above)”, Ps. xxxix. 18. [This 
is Luther’s version, but it is doubtful whether the 
antithesis of pilgrim and citizen is warranted by 


the original Hebrew, avin is rather a denizen 


than a citizen; the Jews of the dispersion were 
denizens, not citizens.—M.]. The time of his sor- 
rowful pilgrimage is brief, as contrasted with the 
eternal glory of his imperishable home. Ch. i. 4; 
v. 10; ii. 11. cf: Heb. xi. 19: 


5. The call of Divine grace has its proper 
seasons and hours in nations as well as in individ- 
uals. According to Acts xvi. 6, 7, the Spirit for- 
bade Paul and Timothy to preach in proconsular 
Asia and Bithynia, but soon after the hour of 
grace struck also for those provinces passed over 
at the first. On his return from Europe, Paul 
declared the word of the Lord Jesus to the Jews 
and Greeksin Asia by the space of two years, 
Acts xix. 10. He or other servants of Christ 
must have planted a Church in Bithynia. 

6. The state of salvation of believers is not the 
result of some sudden manifestation of the loving 
will of God, sprung up in the course of time, but 
the effect of His eternal decree and fore-determina- 
tion. Itis a work participated in by the three 
persons of the Holy Trinity and redounding to 
their glory. God the Father elects unto salvation 
in Christ and prepares salvation; God the Son 
gives reality to election by His life, suffering and 
death; God the Holy Ghost appropriates and ap- 
plies to the souls of penitent sinners the salvation 
procured by Jesus Christ.—He that places him- 
self under the discipline of the Holy Ghost and 
suffers himself to form the resolution, ‘‘ All that 
the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient,” 
as Israel said of old, Ex. xxiv. 7, is mysteriously 
sprinkled with the blood of Christ, his sins are 
covered, he is regarded as pure and holy in Christ, 
and enabled to render priestly service to Godand 
to be found without spot before Him, 1 Jno. i. 7. 
In the New Testament, spirit and blood appear to 
be intimately related to each other, Jno. vi. 53, 
etc., Rom. iii. 24, 25; viii. 1; 1 Jno. v. 6. 

7. Peace is a glorious fruit of grace where 
it is received into the heart, cf. Rom. i. 7. The 
salutation of peace contains the sum-total of the 
gospel. Luther says: ‘‘Peace is the favour of 
God which now begins in us but must work more 
and more and multiply unto death. If aman 
knows and believes ina gracious God, he has 
Him; his heart finds peace, and he fears neither 
the world nor the devil, for he knows that God, 
who controls all things, is his friend, and will de- 
liver him from death, hell and all calamity ; there- 
fore his conscience is full of peace and joy. This 
is what Peter desires for believers; it is a right 
Christian salutation, with which all Christians 
should greet one another.” 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The servants of Christ find consolation and pro- 
tection in the fact that they are sent of the Lord. 
—The motto of Israelites indeed: “1 am a guest 
on earth.’”—The sublime consolation to belong to 
God’s elect people ;—[to be a member of the 
Church, éxxAyoia.—M.]. The reason of our elec- 
tion resides not in man but in the free grace of 
God.—The unmistakable tokens of election.— 
Sprinkling with the blood of Christ, the precious 
treasure of the elect.—The work of grace carried 
on by the Holy Trinity in the saint’s heart.— 
The blessed end for which we are called. 

Starke :—Peter was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, 
but not the visible vicegerent of Christ on earth. 
—A true pastor cannot forget those whom he has 
begotten in Jesus Christ; if he is unable to com- 
fort them orally, he does it by letter.—He who is 


14 


* 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


re a ee er 


a stranger in a country needs not on that account 
be sad; itis enough that he has secured a fair 
heritage in Christ. The more he perceives this, 
the less will he be attached to the world and the 
more will he long for his heavenly fatherland.— 
In the election of grace the decree of God is not 
absolute, but it takes place because persevering 


faith in Jesus Christ is foreseen.—Grace and 
peace belong together, and must not be confound- 
ed with nature and assurance; grace brings 
peace and peace testifies of grace. None can de- 
sire any thing more precious than grace and 
peace; he that hath them is happy for time and 
for eternity. 


CHAPTER I. 3-12. 


ANALysIs:—God is praised for the grace of regeneration and for the hope of the heavenly inheritance, founded thereon. 
Sufferings should augment and intensify the Christian’s joy, for they serve to prove his faith. The Spirit of Christ had 
directed the inquiries of the prophets to this end of hope, yea, even the angels were desirous of looking into this sal- 
vation. 


Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his 
abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ from the dead? To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and 
that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,’ Who are kept *by the power 
of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. SW herein 
ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through 
manifold temptations: That the "trial of your faith, being much more precious than 
of gold that perisheth, though it be *tried with fire, might be found °unto praise 
and honour and glory at the “appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom having not “seen, 
ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy un- 

9 speakable and full of glory:” * Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of 
10 your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, 
11 who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, “or what 
manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified 
beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it 
was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us® they did minister the things, which 
are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the 
Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. 


coo aw 65 σι. SS) 


12 


Verse 3. [1 Regeneravit nos.—Vulg.—M.] 


[2 German :—* Who, according to His manifold mercy, hath begotten us again by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ from the dead, unto a living hope.”—M.] 
Translate: - - - begatus againunto - - - - - - through the resurrection, ctc.—M.] 


Cod. Sin—6.a for &v’.—M.] 
Verse 4. [8 Text. Rec. ἡμᾶς A. B. C.K. L., ὑμᾶς; 80 also most of the Versions.—M.] 
[Cod. Sin.—apap+ Kk. dmiavtT'—ev ovpave—M.] 
Verse 5. [Ὁ Guarded.—Gal. iii. 23.—M. } 
5 εἰς, till—aActs iv. 3; Phil. i. 10; Gal. iii. 18, 24; 1 Thess. iv. 15; cf. also 2 Pet. ii. 4.—M.] 
[Calvin :—Quid juvat, salutem nobis in clo esse repositam, quum nos in mundo tanquam in turbulento 
mari jactemur? quid juvat, salutem nostram statui in tranquillo portu, quum inter mille naufragia fluc- 
tuemur? Praevenit Apostolus ejusmodi objectiones, etc.—M.] 


[Bengel: “ Hereditas servata est; hxredes custodiuntur; neque illa his, neque hi deerunt ili. Corroboratio in- 


signis.”—M. 
[Aretius :-—“ Militare est vocabulum φρουρά: presidium. Pii igitur dum sunt inpericulis, sciant totidem eis 
ὡς divinitus parata esse presidia: millia millium custodeunt eos.” —M.] : 
Cod. Sin.—ét of pws .—M.] 
German :—* Which is already prepared.”—M. ] 


- 


Verse 6. [6 ἐν ᾧ, “in the which tyme.”—Tyndale.—M. ] 
Cod. Sin.—*8 éov without ἐστιν" --"λυπηθέντες .—M. 
German :—“Whereat ye rejoice; who now, if it must be so, are for a little time (ora little) afflicted in mani- 
fold temptations.”—M. ] 
[Translate :—“ In which (time) ye rejoice, for a little time at present (Alford), if it must be so, having 
beenafflicted,in. - - - - - .°—M.] 
Verse 7. [7 δοκίμιον probably—Soxtpacia, proof Jas. i. 3. Proof comes nearer the German than trial.—M.] 
[8 δοκιμάζειν probare, whence the German pruefen, erprobt, and the English prove.—M. 
[German :—‘ That your faith in its proof may be found much more precious than perishable gold, whick 
is also proved by fire, unto praise and honour and glory in the revelation,” etc.—M.] 
[Cod. Sin.—mroAutipdtepov.—dok-K. TUM .—M.] 
9 cis, resulting in. See Robinson s. y. eis 3. a.—M.] 
Ὁ ἀποκαλύψει-εϊη revelation. Vulg. Wicl.—M.] 
Vorse 8. [11 Lachmann and Tischend. ἐδόντες, but εἰδότες is also strongly supported.—M.] 
[Cod. Sin., agrees with the former.—M.] 
[2 Laetitia glorificata—Vulg., Germ., Wicl., Geneva, Alford. Triumphant joy—Brown.—M.] 


CHAPTER 1. 3-12. 


15 


Verse 9. [18 Receiving the end of your faith; rather, “ carrying off the end of your faith”.—M. 


Verse 10. 


Cod. Sin.—é En pavv. with A. B’—M 
Verse 11. 


Cod. Sin.—épavyv. with B’.—M. 
[4 Quo et quali tempore.—Jaspis. 
Verse 12. [15 ὑμῖν is the more authentic reading.—M.] 


This is the sense of κομίζω in ake see Liddell and Scott s. v. ii. 2.—Reportantes, Vulg.—M.] 


“Tn relation to whom and what time.”—Purver.—M. ] 


[ἡμῖν Rec. K. Syr. Copt. ὑμῖν A. B.C. L., Cod. Sin—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 3. The praise of the Divine grace in the glo- 
rious hope of Christians flows like a deep and wide 
stream from the full heart of the Apostle νυ. 3-12. 
Paul praises in similar language with one long 
breath of joy the salvation given unto us, Eph. i. 
3-14. We have first the source and cause of 
our hope, v. 3, then its end and glory, v. 4, then 
the way we must take which ought not to make 
us hesitate v. 5-8, and lastly the means designed 
to encourage and strengthen us, vy. 8-12. 

Blessed be the God—Christ.—God is here 
_blessed, as is frequently the case in the Epistles 
of Paul, not only as the Father but also as the 
God of Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 81; Rom. 
XV Os phe iow la (ΟἹ. 1, ὁ; ο΄. ommiexe yi. 
An important suggestion concerning the relation 
of the Logos to the Father. Only in Christ and 
through him do all find and possess God. The 
Paternity points to the eternal generation out of 
the Being of God, Ps. ii. 3; and to the intimate re- 
lation to the Incarnate Son. Weiss derives this 
doxological formula from, what may be called, the 
liturgical usage of the primitive Church, ef. 
Jas. i. 27; i1i.9. He thinks that said expression 
is insufficient as proof of the Essential Divinity 
and Preéxistence of Christ. Cf. on the other 
hand, Matt. xvi. 16; John vi. 68. 


Merey, ἔλεος (701) the compassionating 


love of God, which condescends to the low estate 
of the helpless, the weak, the impotent, the 
wretched and the sinful. It isa manifold mercy, 
a wonderful riches thereof (Rom. ii. 4) which 
appears from the multitude of its gifts of grace, 
from the depth of our misery, from the extent 
and diversity of its efforts of deliverance. 

Begotten again, ἀναγεννῆσας ete. cf. John iii. 
ὃ; Tit. 111. 5; James. i. 18; Col. iii. 1; Eph. ii. 
10. He has kindled in us a new spiritual life by 
Holy Baptism and the influences of the Holy 
Spirit connected therewith, cf. Eph. i. 19. 20. 
He has laid the foundation of recreating us into 
Hisimage. ‘‘He has made us other men in a far 
more essential sense than it was once said to 
Saul: ‘Thou shalt be turned into another man’ 
1 Sam. x. 0. What is the principal fruit and end 
of this new generation? A living hope, Its 
object is not only our future resurrection (Grotius, 
Bengel, de Wette), but the whole plenitude of 
the salvation still to be revealed by Jesus Christ, 
even until the new heavens and the new earth 
shall appear, 2 Peter iii. 13. 14; Rev. xxi. 1. 
Birth implies life; so it is with the hope of 
believers, which is the very opposite of the yain, 
lost and powerless hope of the worldly-minded. 
It is powerful, and quickens the heart by com- 
forting, strengthening, and encouraging it, by 
making it joyous and cheerful in God. Its 
quickening influence enters even into our physical 
life. ‘Hope is not only the fulfilment of the new 
life, created in regeneration, but also the inner- 
most kernel of the same.’ Weiss. 


By the resurrection of Jesus Christ 
from the dead.—0i ἀναστάσεως, Calvin, Gerhard, 
Knapp, and Weiss join it to avayerv.; it seems 
more natural to connect it with the immediately 
preceding ζῶσαν; so cumenius, Bengel, Steiger, 
Lachmann and de Wette. The life of this hope 
flows from the resurrection of Jesus Christ from 
the dead. ‘If Christ had not risen from the 
dead, we should be without consolation and hope, 
and all the work and sufferings of Christ would 
be in vain.” Luther. As surely as He has 
conquered death and entered upon a heavenly 
life of joy, so surely will those who are members 
of the Body, whereof He is Head, follow Him, 
even as we sing: Does the head forget its members, 
And not draw them after it? 

Ver. 4. To an inheritance, incorruptible 
and undefiled and that fadeth not away.— 
Believers are strangers here on earth, but citizens 
in heaven; they have therefore in heaven a pos- 
session and an inheritance which infinitely excels 
the inheritance of God’s ancient people in the 
land of Canaan. The heavenly inheritance (cf. 
Matthew vi. 20; Luke xii. 388; x. 25; xviii. 
18; Mark x. 17) is (a) icorruptible. It is 
free alike from the germs of corruption and 
death, like all things earthly, even those which 
are seemingly most firm and indestructible, e. g. 
the precious metals, ch. i. 18. 23; cf. 1 John ii. 
17. ‘Rust does not corrupt it, decay does not 
consume it, death does not destroy it.” Besser. 
It comprehends union to Him, who only has 
immortality and is called ‘the Eternal’ 1 Tim. i. 
17. How could it then be destroyed by any 
external power? It is (b) wndefiled or wnblemish- 
able. The earth and the land of Canaan in 
particular were polluted by fearful bloodshedding 
and many other horrors. Lev. xviii. 27. 28; 
Numb. xxxv. 33. 34; Ezek. xxxvi. 17; Jer. ii. 7. 
Injustice, selfishness, hatred, envy and cunning 
cleave to temporal possessions. If gathered by 
avarice, they are compared to loathsome and 
thick mire, Hab. ii. 6. Every human body and 
every human soul is stained with hateful desires 
and mostly, also, with outward sin. All earthly 
joy is mingled with displeasure and sorrow. 
But the possessions of the life above are pure, 
clean and unstained, and nothing impure can 
attach itself to them. (c) “1 fadeth not away.’ 
Here the beauty of earthly nature is rapidly 
passing away, there reigns perpetual spring; 
here a hot wind may change the most blooming 
gardens into a wilderness, cf. ch. i. 24; Is. xl. 
6; there no such alternation of blossoming and 
fading is found, but every thing remains in the 
beauty of imperishable bloom and _ verdure. 
Weiss sees in the three predicates a striking 
climax. He saysthatthe first denotes the freedom 
of the heavenly possession from the germs of 
destructibility and transitoriness, which are 
inherent in all earthly things, that the second 
denies its ability to be polluted by outward sin, 
and the third even the alternation, which makes 
the beauty of earthly nature pass away at least 


16 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


temporarily. ["Ag@aproc externum durens ;— 
᾿Αμίαντος purum—cui nihil mali, nihil vitii est 
admiztum—ut purum gaudium—gaudium cui nihil 
tristitie admiscetur.’Audpavto¢ non marcescens. 
Morus.—M. | 

Reserved in heaven, τετηρημένην. While 
here below in the strange country of our pil- 
grimage all possessions are insecure, the inheri- 
tance above is in the surest custody, for it is in the 
Almighty hand of God. As it has been designed 
and prepared for believers from everlasting, so 
it is perpetually kept; and believers, on the 
other hand, are kept for it, v. 5, so that they can 
in no wise lose it, οἵ, Col. 1. δ; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Matt. 
xxy. 84: John x. 28. τετῆρ. implies both the 
certainty and present concealment of the heavenly 
inheritance. The figure is taken from parents 
who securely guard something for their children, 
and then surprise them with it. 

Ver. 5. Who are kept by the power of 
God, φρουρεῖν, a military term used of a guard 
for the protection of a place, or of a strongly 
garrisoned fortress. Fear not the enemies of 
your salyation, for you are surrounded by a 
strong, protecting body-guard, by the power of 
God and His holy angels, οἵ, 2 Cor. xi. 832; Phil. 
iv. 7; Song of Sol. iii. 7.8; Zech. 11, ὃ; 2 Kings 
vi. 16.17. Nothing short of Divine power is 
needed to protect us from so many strong and 
subtle enemies, as Peter made experience in his 
own case. Weiss with Steiger and de Wette 
explain it of the Holy Ghost. δύναμις Θεοῦ is 
certainly used in that sense, Luke i. 35, but 
πνεῦμα ἅγιον goes before. The other passages 
adduced by them are inconclusive. It seems 
therefore arbitrary to abandon the relation of 
the expression to the Omnipotence of God. On 
what condition do we enjoy that guard? Faith, 
whose object is not mentioned here in particular, 
and should be supplied fromy. 8. Itis the same 
means by which salvation is first procured, then 
constantly kept up, viz.: acknowledging Jesus as 
the Messiah and confidently surrendering to Him, 
which is not identical with obedience, but the 
source of it, cf. Acts iii. 16; x. 48; Matt. ix. 22; 
Mark y. 34; Luke vii. 50. 


Salvation ready, σωτηρία, ΓΔ)  nega- 


tively, deliverance from eternal destruction, and 
positively, introduction to the salvation prepared 
by Jesus, translation from the power of Satan, 
sin and death into the perfect life of liberty, 
righteousness and truth, Acts ii. 40; iv. 12; v. 31; 
xv. 11; 1 Peter i. 9; Matt. xvi. 25; Luke ix. 56. 
The former point is predominant as the latter lies 
rather in κληρονομία. With Peter σωτηρία appears 
in most intimate connection with the completion 
of salvation, chap. i. 9; iv. 17. 18; Acts ii. 21; 
1 Peter ii. 2, How much he has it at heart is 
evident from his using the word three times in 
this section. He thinks of it not as far distant, 
but as close at hand, as he says in ch. iy. 5, 
“Who shall give account to Him that is ready to 
Judge the quick and the dead,” cf. ch. ἵν. 7. Sharing 
the opinion of the other apostles concerning the 
nearness of Christ’s Advent to judgment, he 
describes σωτηρία as ready to be revealed (James 
v. 7.8; Rev. i. 8; xxii. 10. 20; Heb. x. 25. 87; 
Jude 18; 1 John ii. 18; Rom. xiii. 11. 12; 1 
Cor. xv. 51; 2 Cor. vy. 2.3; Phil. iv. 5; 1 Thess. 


iv. 17). “The inheritance to which you are 
ordained, has been acquired long since and pre- 
pared from the beginning of the world, but lies 
as yet concealed, covered and sealed; but in 
a short time, it will be opened in a moment and 
disclosed, so that we may see it.” Luther. 

To be revealed, ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, denotes sal- 
vation fully disclosed, cf. ch. i. 7; iv. 18; vy. 1. 
At ch. i. 13 it refers to the announcement of the 
first advent of Christ, cf. Rom. xvi. 25; and to 
inward revelation at 1 Cor. ii. 10; Gal. i. 16; 
iii. 23. In the last time, ἐν καιρῷ ἐσκάτῳ, in 
the completing period of salvation beginning 
with the return of Christ, this is elsewhere called 
συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, Matt. xiii. 89.40; xxiv. 
3; xxviii. 20; οὐ ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα John xi. 24; xii. 


24; xii. 48. In Hebrew DDT TIAN Gen. 


xlix. 1; Num. xxiv. 14; Deut. iv. 39; Is. ii. 2; 
Mich. iv.1; Ezek. xxxviii. 16; Dan. x. 14, where 
regard is had sometimes more to the beginning, 
sometimes more to the development of that period 
The last times of the present system of the world, 
of the αἰὼν οὗτος are also called ἔσχαται ἡμέραι, 
2 Tim. iii. 1; Jude 18; 1 Peter i. 20; 2 Peter 
ili. 8, or ἐσχάτη Opa, 1 John ii. 18; they border 
upon those συντέλεια, but do not coincide with 
them. Somewhat different appears the wsus 
loquendi of the Ep. to the Hebrews (ch. ix. 26). 
But ἐπὶ συντέλειᾳ may be rendered, near to the 
period of completion, which the author thought 
immediately impending. . 

Ver. 6. Wherein ye greatly rejoice.— 
Ἔν ᾧ connect not with καιρός, but with the whole 
preceding sentence, verses4and 5. The thought 
of the great possessions reserved for you, justly 
fills you with exceeding joy. In this do not let 
yourselves be disconcerted by quickly passing 
sufferings of probation, which for your proof are 
necessary to the happiness of all Christians. 

If need be.—Ei δέον supposes that the afflic- 
tions will not be of uninterrupted continuance and 
that their duration and measure have been decreed 
by the wisdom of God, and that they will not be 
continued one minute longer than is needful for 
us. Believers also need them in exact adjustment 
to the degree to which their nature remains as 
yet uncleansed of the poison of sin. 

In heaviness through manifold tempta- 
tions.—Sufferings cause to the outer man pain 
and grief, Heb. xii. 11, while the inner man can 
rejoice in them. 

ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς; πειρασμ. relates to afflic- 
tions differing in kind, sent or permitted by 
God as trials or tests of the reality of the Chris- 
tian’s religious principles, as exercising his pa-~ 
tience and developing his desire after hea- 
venly things. Among the peculiar temptations 
to which believers who had left Judaism were 
exposed, we may mention the contempt and abuse 
they met at the hands of their former coreligion- 
ists, the temporal losses to which they had to 
submit and the efforts of false teachers to induce 
them to deny the truth and to effect a mixture of 
Judaism and Christianity. Cf. Heb. x. 82; Jas. 
i. 2; Acts viii. 1; xv. 1; xiv. 22; 1 Thess. iii. 
2 etc.; 2 Cor. xi. 28. 

Ver. 7. That the trial of your faith.—/nd 
of the temptations y. 7: The splendour and pre- 
ciousness of faith is to shine witha brilliancy 


CHAPTER I. 3-12. 


17 


--- ῸΘὩἙΓὃ»ΘὌὩἅ.ῦΟϑύϑθΘὔῳΘϑὺϑΘϑὅϑὅῳ .-.0.-.-.-᾽Θ-᾽ ἑς.Ἐ---ς-.ς9.ς..ςςὀ---΄. -Ξἠ- Ὀὠὠ-ὀἠ»  -η  -οὀ- -ς,-ἙἝΘς-...-.-.»..Σὅ--.--ς-.-.-“----ς--ς-ς-ς--ςς-ς.ςςς-ς-ς-ς.-- 


inversely proportioned to their darkness [%. 6. of 
the temptations, M.] Faith must be tested by 
temptations which are consequently unable to 
mar the joy of our hope in Christ. 

Τὸ δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως. δοκίμιον signifies proof- 
stone, proof, tried integrity. Here it can only be 
taken in the lastsense. The proof of faith—faith 
abiding the proof or test, or faith verified by trial, 
ef. James i. 8. Inthe Old Testament, the proof or 
trial of faith is frequently compared to the trial 
of gold by the process of smelting or refining by 
fire, Job xxiii. 10; Ps. xvi. 10; Jer. ix. 7; Zech. 
xiii. 9; Mal. iii. 2, Gold is the most precious 
metal, but faith is even more precious; as gold 
is tried, proved and refined by fire, so faith must 
be proved and refined by the fire of temptations. 
As the heat of fire separates dross from gold, so 
all alloy must be separated from faith, all self- 
reliance on our own wisdom or strength, all 
dependence on the help of the creature,—a7oAduy. 
Think of consumitur annulus usu. [Ignatius, a 
successor of Peter at Antioch, calls his chains 
‘spiritual pearls.” Cyprian, speaking of the dress 
of virgins, says, that when Christian women suffer 
martyrdom with faith and courage, then their 
sufferings are like pretiosa monilia, costly bracelets. 
See Wordsworth in loco, who notices the following 
passage from Hermas, Pastor i. 4, p. 440, ed. 
Dressel: ‘Aurea pars vos estis ; sicut enim per ignem 
aurum probatur, et utile fit, sic et vos probamini ; 
qui igitur permanserint et probati fuerint, ab eis pur- 
gabuntur; et sicut aurum emendatur et remittit 
sordem suam, sic et vos abjicietis omnem tristitiam 
(ὀλίγον λυπηθέντες) et emendabimini instructuram 
turris.—M.”’| εὑρεθῇ already now, since often the 
enemies of truth are constrained to acknowledge 
such fidelity of faith, innocence and patience, 
but more in the last days and in the great day 
of Christ. Matt. xxv. 28; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Heb. 
xii. 11; James i. 12; Rev. ii. 8-10. 

Unto praise and honour—Jesus Christ. — 
Hic ἔπαινον k.t.2. The reward of grace which 
the elect shall receive at the return of Christ 
consists of (a) the praise of their fidelity of faith, 
cf. Matt. xxv. 21; 1 Cor. iv. 5; Rom. ii. 7. 10; 
2 Thess. i. 5; (Ὁ) the honour which Christ pro- 
mises to His faithful servants and shows to them, 
in fact, by the honourable position to which He 
promotes them, John xii. 26; cf. 1 Sam. ii. 30; 
Rey. xxii. 4; 111, 21; (c) of the glory, which the 
Father has given to Christ, ch. i. 11. 21; Acts 
111. 13; and which He will communicate to all 
that are His, ch. iv. 18; v.1; iv. 14. τιμή and 
δόξα occur often conjointly in Paul’s writings, 1 
tim 1.17: Roms ΠΟΙ τ 7 9. She 
future glory affecting alike the soul and the body 
(ef. 1 Cor. xv. 43-49; Phil. iii. 21,) appears as 
the end of the whole work of redemption, (Rom. 
ix. 23; 2 Cor. 111. 18; 1 Cor. ii. 7), and therefore 
as the main object of Christian hope, Rom. y. 
2; Col. i. 27. The effulgency of God will here- 
after shine out of all believers, because they hold 
the most intimate communion with the glorified 
Jesus. The completion of the elect shall also 
redound to the praise, honour and glory of God 
Himself, cf. Rev. iv. 11; v. 12.18. The object 
is probably not mentioned designedly.— Ep 
ἀποκαλ. vide τ 

VER. 8. om having not seen—full 
of glory.—For the confirmation of their hope 


the Apostle after having mentioned the name of 
Jesus, continues in allusionto John xx. 29: whom 
although you have not known by face, yet you 
love. The relation you sustain to Him is that of 
the heart. The simplest construction of εἰς ὅν is 
to connect it with ἀγαλλ., in expectation of whom, 
and because of whom you greatly rejoice. The 
present and the future are intertwined. χαρᾷ 
δεδοξασμένῃ in contrast with the idle and vain joy 
of the world, denotes a joy from which are sepa- 
rated all impure and obscuring elements, which 
according to the explanation of Steinmeyer and 
Weiss, contains glory in the germ, by which the 
future glory irradiates already the earthly life 
of Christians, and which anticipates, as it were, 
the future glory. Roos: ‘‘ Joy clothed in glory.” 


Ver. 9. Receiving the end of your faith, 
κομιζόμενοι. Living hope regards the future as 
the present. The word is used of competitors in 
the games, who, upon proving victorious, carry 
off presents or prizes.—r0 τέλος, the end to which 
competitors in the Christian race aspire, cf. 1 
Cor. ix. 24 etc.; 2 Tim. iv. 7.8; Heb. xii. 1.— 
The salvation of the soul is the end of faith and 
the reward of grace, given to the Christian at 
the completion of the contest, cf. Acts xv. 11; 
1 Peter i. 5. 


Ver. 10. Of which Salvation—grace that 
should come unto you.—Connection: This 
salvation increases in importance and precious- 
ness, if we consider that the prophets did with 
the utmost eagerness inquire into the means and 
time of salvation, and that even the happy angels 
desired to have an insight of this mystery. How 
happy are we to whom is revealed, what was 
concealed from them! ἐκζητεῖν, to make most 
diligent and zealous inquiry into a thing and to 
regard it from every point of view. ἐξερευνᾷνεεε: 


WPT ID , used of miners engaged in digging 


for precious metalsin the bowels oftheearth. They 
have searched with a diligence like that displayed 
in the mining of gold and silver, cf. Job xxviii. 
15-19; Prov. iii. 14-18. περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος. 
They did prophesy of the saving grace, which 
by the life, the sufferings and the death of Christ 
has risen upon a sinful world (the whole world 
of sinners). This grace is no longer represented 
to you by various types, but has become real. 
Cf. John i. 17. 


Ver. 11. What, or what manner of time— 
glory that should follow.—HEic τίνα ἢ ποῖον 
καιρόν. Their inquiries were not only of a general 
character, how many years would have to elapse 
to the advent of the Messiah, but had also par- 
ticular reference to the peculiar condition and 
characteristics of that time and to the relations 
of the Jewish people to foreign powers. τὸ ἐν 
αὐτοῖς mv. Χριστοῦ. The explanation, ‘the spirit 
testifying of Christ,’ which is even found in 
Bengel, is inadmissible on grammatical grounds. 
Perhaps it may be conceived as follows: The 
same Spirit of God, the Messianic Spirit, who in 
the course of time operated in the person of 
Christ, revealed himself in the prophets; szc 
Schmid II., de Wette, Weiss. But more simple 
and natural appears the ancient*interpretation, 
that it was the spirit belonging to the preéxisting 
Messiah from eternity, and which He was conse- 


18 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


SS SSS a a aaa 


quently able to impart to the prophets. Thus 
the preéxisting Messiah is mentioned at 1 Cor. 
x. 4. 9. Weiss quotes Barnabas (Ep. 5 Hefele 
patres apost. Opp. ed. 3, 1847,): prophetee ab ipso 
habentes donum prophetarunt, and Calvin: veteres 
prophetias a Christo ipso dictatas, cf. v. 20; John 
xii. 41; Col. i. 17.--τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήμ. Suffer- 
ings in store for, waiting for Christ.—rd¢ μετὰ 
ταῦτα δόξας, sufferings and glory are thus con- 
nected, Luke xxiv. 26; cf. Matt. xvi. 21. It is 
a treasure of glories, of which Christ has taken 
possession and which will be fully revealed at 
the marriage of the Lamb, Rey. xix. 7. 

Ver. 12. Unto whom—lookinto. ᾿Αποκαλ. 
relates to the communication of things new, and 
previously unknown, cf. Matt. x. 26; Rom. i. 18; 
1 Cor. iii. 13. ὁτι---αὐτὰ. se. παθημ. x. do&. should 
be treated as a parenthesis in answer to the ques- 
tion, Why were those things revealed to them, 
seeing they were not permitted to realize their 
fulfilment? It was not done for their sake, but 
for ours; they were thereby to minister unto us. 
-π-εὐαγγελισαμένων ὑμᾶς, who have evangelized you, 
brought you the glad tidings. From this it may 
be inferred that others besides Peter had first 
preached the Gospel to those Christians, at all 
events that he was not their only teacher.— 
ἀποσταλέντι an’ ovpav. ef. Luke xxiy. 49; Acts ii. 
2, ete.; Gal. iv. 6; John xy. 26. While in the 
Old Testament we frequently meet with the ex- 
pression that the Spirit fell on the prophets, Ezek. 
viii. 1; xi. 5; denoting the suddenness, the passing 
and overpowering nature of His influence, He is 
in the New Testament said to be sent.—rapaxinpac 
properly to stand by and stoop down, in order 
to examine something very closely, to look at 
something with the countenance bent down. The 
salvation, revealed by Jesus Christ, contains a 
wealth of thoughts and ideas that is unfathoma- 
ble even to the angels, cf. James i. 25; Eph. iii. 
10. Their looking into has already begun and 
is still continuing. This is indicated by the 
Aorist. [ Wordsworth: This high and holy 
mystery which represents the angels themselves 
bending over the Word of God enshrined in the 
Ark of the Church, was symbolized by the figures 
of the Cherubim of Glory spreading their wings, 
and bending their faces, and shadowing the 
Mercy-seat, in the Holy of Holies, upon the Ark, 
in which were kept the Tables of the Law written 
by God (Ex. xxv. 18-22; Heb. ix. 4.5); and by 
the side of which was the Pentateuch. Deut. 
xxxi, 24-26.—M. ] 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


(1). The circumstance that the first person in 
the Godhead is described as the God and Father 
of Jesus Christ, points indisputably toa certain 
dependence of the Being of Christ on the Father, 
not only with respect to the humanity of our 
Lord, but, also, with respect to His Divine nature. 
Thus Christ called the Father His God, even after 
His resurrection, Jno. xx. 17; Rev. iii. 12; ii. 7. 

' With this agree the expressions of the Apostles, 
Eph. i. 17; Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. xi. 81; Col. i. 3. 
Where the three supreme names are mentioned 
together, the Father only is called God by em- 
phasis, 1 Pet. i. 1. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 18; 1 Cor. xii. 


4-6; iii. 23; xi. 3; Rev. i.4-6. Nevertheless, 
the Scriptures teach us firmly to maintain the 
true Divinity of Christ, although, the guo modo 
of such simultaneous equality and dependence of 
Being transcends our powers of comprehension. 
The filial relation among men affords, however, 
an analogy. [Cf. the following section of the 
Athanasian Creed :—‘ Sed necessarium est ad xter- 
nam Salutem, ut Incarnationem quoque Domini nostri 
Jesu Christi fideliter credat. Est ergo Fides recta, 
ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster 
Jesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus pariter et Homo 
est. Deus est ex Substantia Patris ante sxcula 
genitus: Homo ex Substantia Matris in sxcula natus. 
Perfectus Deus, perfectus Homo ex anima rationali 
et humana carne subsistens. Alqualis Patri secun- 
dum Divinitatem: Minor Patre secundum Human- 
itatem. Qui licet Deus sit et Homo, non duo tamen, 
sed unus est Christus. Unus autem, non conversione 
Divinitatis in Carnem, sed adsumtione Humanitatis 
in Deum. Unus omnino, non confusione Substan- 
tie, sed unitate Persone. Nam sicut Anima ra- 
tionalis et Caro unus est Homo; ita Deus et Homo 
unus est Christus.”” Fipes CaTHoLica vy. 27-35. 

2). As corporeal life presupposes birth, so does 
spiritual life, Jno. iii. 8; and just as man is unable 
to beget and bring forth himself into physical 
and earthly life, so his spiritual generation and 
new-birth are equally independent of himself. 

(8). As there are two men in every true 
Christian, a new man and an old one, so heavi- 
ness in manifold temptation and rejoicing may 
readily co-exist, v. 6. 

(4). Our Lord’s return has been one of the 
fundamental articles of the faith of universal 
Christendom in every age of the Church’s history. 
To hide this important doctrine under a bushel, 
is at once a defect of teaching and in opposition 
to the mind of Christ and His apostles, vy. 7. It 
is to be noticed that the return of Christ shall be 
preceded, not only by several ages, but also, by 
several ends of ages, with typical final judg- 
ments, as St. Paul speaks of τέλῃ τῶν αἰώνων. The 
flood, the dispersion of the ten tribes, the judg- 
ment on Judah, but especially the destruction 
of Jerusalem and the conquest of Palestine, were 
in a certain sense such final judgments, ef. 1 Cor. 
> Mile 

(5). Verses 10-12, afford us an insight into the 
mode of prophetic inspiration, and into the re- 
lation of the Divine influence and the free mental 
activity of the prophets. They met, as it were, 
the Spirit of God with their earnest longings 
for salvation; the Spirit communicated to them 
the main burden of prophecy; while the time 
and details of the beginning of salvation were 
left to their researches and inquiries. They 
made a free appropriation of what the Spirit 
had disclosed to them, and sought to apply it to 
time and circumstances. 

[The Scripture facts onthe subject of inspiration 
are as follows: the subjects of inspiration were 
permitted to make diligent and faithful research 
(Luke i. 1-4), to clothe the same thought in differ- 
ent language (cf. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27; Luke xxii. 
19. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 24. 25; also Matt. iii. 17; Mk. 
i. 11; Luke iii. 22), give distinctive colouring to 
their accounts; according tothe circumstances that 
grouped round their individuality (compare the 


CHAPTER I. 3-12. 


— τ΄ -----΄΄---.---ς---Φἑς--ῥὍ-ς-ς--ς-ς-ςςςς-Ὃ-ς------ 


character and early associations of the four 
Evangelists, as well as the scope of each Gospel, 
compare, also, the style of Ezekiel and Isaiah, 
of John and Paul), to cite other inspired author- 
ities (Ps. cviii. and Ps. lvii. 7-11; Ix. 5-12, etc.), 
to use uninspired documents (Josh. x. 13; Numb. 
xxi. 14; Jude ix. 14, 15), they sometimes were un- 
certain of the precise meaning and application of 
their message (1 Pet. i. 10-12; Dan. xii. 8, etc.) 
and their message was delivered in language ap- 
proved by the Divine Spirit (1 Pet. i. 10. 11; Dan. 
xii. 8; 2 Tim. iii. 16; Heb i. 1; 1 Cor. ii. 12. 13), 
see Angus’s Bible Handbook, δὲ 146-150, for a 
brief account of Inspiration. ‘Inspiration is 
such an immediate and complete discovery by the 
Holy Spirit, to the minds of the sacred writers, of 
those things which could not have otherwise been 
known, and such an effectual sxperintendence as 
to those matters which they might have been in- 
formed of by other means—as entirely preserved 
them from error in every particular, which could 
in the least affect any of the doctrines or precepts 
contained in their books.” Scotts Hssays.—M. ] 

(6). Since, according to v. 11, the Spirit of 
Christ wrought in the prophets, the prophetical 
writings must possess an authority not inferior 
to the testimony of Christ in the New Testament. 
Both Testaments contain one and the same prin- 
ciple of revelation, one kernel and centre; but 
while the Old Testament is only the threshold 
and fore-testimony of the New Testament, the 
New Testament is the end and fulfilment of the 
Old. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Christianity is essentially a life of hope—it is 
founded on living hope. The eye of faith looks 
out for the glorious revelation of Jesus Christ 
from heaven, for the first resurrection, for the 
heavenly city of peace (Jerusalem), for the pre- 
cious inhevitance, for the new heaven and the new 
earth.—He that has become conscious of his sin- 
fulness and manifold bondage and has fixed his eye 
on the heavenly treasure, must needs celebrate 
the praises of God.—Without regeneration there 
is no partaking of the heavenly inheritance.— 
Nothing short of Divine power is sufficient to 
keep us unto salvation.—The hope of faith is the 
root out of which grows the fruit of a spiritual 
joy, sereneand triumphant over pain.—When 
the Christian contemplates the glorious fruit and 
its consequences, he can rejoice at what most 
deeply pains the children of this world. 

The mystery of afflictions and temptations in 
believers. —The solution of the riddle lies in their 
scope—proof, separation from dross, exercise and 
purification.—The world’s joy never comes up to 
the terms in which its praises are published in 
speech or in song, while the opposite holds good of 
Christian joy.—What must be the character of 
such as desire to be partakers of the kingdom of 
Christ ?—Disparity and similarity in the dispo- 
sition and situation of believers of the Old and 
New Testaments.—The sweet harmony of the 
prophets in their predictions of Christ.—The 
Holy Ghost the best Teacher. 

The words of Jesus and the Apostles a precious 
key to the right understanding of prophecy.—If 
the angels greatly desire to look into the myste- 

12 


19 


ries of the plan of salvation, who are represented 
by the Cherubim on the mercy-seat, how much 
more highly ought we to prize the knowledge of 
salvation in Christ! 

SrarKE:—Would you give the consolation of 
vy. 8-9 for an empire? If the hope be living, the 
inheritance is sure, viz., the crown that never 
fades, the treasure that none can steal. Abide 
the heat. How short is suffering—how long the 
glittering eternity! Heavenly life God will give 
above, evermore my heart shall praise Him. 

Hepincer:—Regeneration is solely the work 
of God all-merciful, who helps the wretched 
from a spiritual death to spiritual life.—Chil- 
dren and friends inherit our goods; those there- 
fore who desire to receive the heavenly inherit- 
ance must be the children and friends of God, 
Rom viii. 16. 17.—If you find this present time 
sorrowful and anxious, have patience; in the 
world you shall have tribulation: look joyfully 
forward to the last time that shall put an end 
to all grief, and bring you eternal glory.—God 
knows best what medicine He has to use for and 
what burdens He has to lay on each, in order to 
kill the old Adam.—As gold is the most precious 
metal, so faith is the most noble of the manifold 
gifts in the kingdom of grace, and as much passes 
for faith without being it, so the cross decides 
its genuineness.—The sum-total of the doctrine 
of Christ treats of His humiliation and exalta- 
tion. For Christ had to drink of the brook and 
therefore shalf He lift up His head, Ps. ex. 7; suffer 
and enter into glory.—If any be bowed down with 
grief, let him take comfort from the example of 
Christ and the words of the Apostle: suffering 
first, glory after. The reverse takes place among 
the children of this world, with them joy comes 
first, and then grief, 2 Tim. ii. 12; Lk. vi. 25.— 
Kaprr:—What is genuine faith? 1. A birth out of 
(emanating from) God; 2. an assurance of what 
is unseen; 3. an inheritance of eternal life.— 
Lisco:—Christian hope; (a) its foundation; (ὁ) 
its object; (6) its power; (4) its glorious re- 
ward.—FEternal salvation: (a) it was the object 
of the longing of the holy prophets; (6) it is made 
to depend on a certain order; (c) it is announced 
to all as existing.—The blessedness of Christian 
hope; (a) it flows from mercy; (4) it is the most 
precious of all possessions ; (6) nothing can pluck 
it from us. What is the glorious goal which the 
children of the kingdom go forth to meet? (a) 
This goal is the heavenly inheritance; (4) it is 
founded on the mercy of God; (6) the way to it, 
persevering faith, is not without manifold tribu- 
lation; (4) it was the object of the longing of 
all the saints of old.—TZhe living hope to which 
we Christians are born again, by the resurrection 
of Jesus Christ from the dead; 1. its precious- 
ness in respect of its cause, object and influ- 
ence; 2. its certainty; (a) the love and faith of 
the members of Christ; (6) from the declarations 
of the prophets and evangelists. 716 Christian’s 
gladness in sadness; 1. because of the life of re- 
generation; 2. because of his inheritance; 9. 
because of Divine protection; 4. because of suf- 
fering; 5. because of future joy.—Sravupt. 

[Vv. 3.4. 1. The Christian’s “tle to the heaven- 
ly inheritance—begotten again; 2. his assurance 
of it—a lively hope; 3. the immediate cause of 
both—Jesus Christ. 4. The sowrce—the abundant 


20 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


mercy of God.—A living hope; the world’s highest 
motto is ‘dum spiro spero,’ the Christian may add 
‘dum expiro spero!’—Abundant mercy. Great sins 
and great miseries need great mercy, and many 
sins and many miseries need many mercies. 
(Bernard).—Love will stammer rather than be 
dumb.—yv. 5. “Salvation will God appoint for 
walls and bulwarks;’ what more safe than to 
be walled with salvation itself? cf. Prov. xviii. 
10.—y. 6. The battle tries the soldier, the storm 
the pilot.—Christian militant—dignum Deo specta- 
culum.—y. 7. An unskillful beholder may think 
it strange to see gold thrown into the fire and 
left there for a time; but he that puts it there, 
would be loath to lose it; his purpose is to make 
some costly piece of work of it; every believer 
gives himself to Christ, and He undertakes to pre- 
sent him blameless unto the Father; not one of 
them shall be lost, nor one drachm of faith; they 
shall be found, and their faith shall be found, 
when He appears. ‘That faith that is here in the 
furnace, shall be then made up into a crown of 
pure gold, itshall be found unto praise and honour 
and glory.—yv. 8. The sun seems less than the 
wheel of a chariot; but reason teaches the phil- 
osopher that it is much larger than the whole 
earth; and the cause why it seems so little is its 
great distance. The naturally wise man is as far 
deceived by this carnal reason in his estimate of 
Jesus Christ, the Sun of righteousness, and the 
" 


cause is the same, his great distance from Him, 
cf. Ps. x. 5.—*‘If I have any possessions, health, 
credit, learning, this is‘all the contentment I have 
of them, that 1 have somewhat I may despise for 
Christ, who is totus desiderabilis et totum desidera- 
bile.’ Greg Nazian. Orat. 1.—There is an insep- 
arable intermixture of love with belief. If you 
ask, how shall I do to Jove, I answer, believe. If you 
ask, how shall I believe? I answer, lovee-—Joy 
unspeakable,—It were a poor thing if he that 
hath it, could tell it all out. (Pauperis est numerare 
pecus). And when the soul has most of it, then 
it remains most within itself, and is so in- 
wardly taken up with it that it can then least of 
all express it. It is with joys, as they say of 
cares and griefs, leves loguuntur, ingentes stupent. 
The deepest waters run stillest. True joy isa 
solid, grave thing (Res severa est verum gaudium. 
Sen.), dwells more in the heart than in the face; 
whereas base and false joys are but superficial, 
skin-deep (as we say); they are all in the face.— 
Lauda mellis dulcedinem quantum potes, qui non gus- 
taverit, non intelliget.—Aug.—v. 12. The true 
preachers of the gospel, though their ministerial 
gifts are for the use of others, yet that salvation 
they preach, they lay hold on and partake of 
themselves, as your boxes wherein perfumes are 
kept for garments and other uses, are themselves 
perfumed by keeping them! From LeigHTon by 


CHAPTER I. 18-21. 


ANALYsIs:—Exhortations to firmness and sobriety, to holiness in mind and conversation, to filial reverence of God,—all 
founded on love and gratitude for the precious redemption by'the blood of Christ. 


13 
14 


1Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end 
for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; *As 


obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your 


15 


ignorance : * But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner 


16,17 οἵ conversation ; ‘Because it is written, Be ye holy; for 1 am holy. °And if ye 
call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every 


18 


man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: °Forasmuch as ye know 


that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain 


conversation received by tradition from your fathers’; But with the precious blood 
of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot: * Who verily was fore- 


ordained before the foundation of the world, *but was manifest in these last times for 


you, Who by him do believe in God,” that raised him up from the dead, and gaye 


him glory; “that your faith and hope might be in God. 


Verse 13. [1 German :—Wherefore with the loins of the mind girded and with soberness of spirit, fix all your hope on 
the grace which is being brought to you in the revelation of Jesus Christ.—M.] : 
[Translate :—Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, being sober, and hope perfectly for the grace which 


is being - - - - .—M.] 


Verse 15. 


8 But after the pattern of that Holy One—de Wette, Alford. —M.] 


Verse 14. ἢ Children of obedience, so Greek. German.—M.] 


4 Conversation=behaviour.—M. ] 


Verse. 16, (Cod. Sin. 210.-τἔσεσθαι διότι for γένεσθε ὅτι of Text. Rec..—omits εἰ μ é—M.] 
Verse 17. [Ὁ And if ye call upon as Father, Him, etc., so German after the Greek. —M.] 


Cod. Sin. *avarrpepopmevor.—M.] 
Verse 18. [ Knowing that.—M. 


7 Out of your vain conversation, delivered to you from your fathers (Alford), inherited from the fathers, 


German.—M. } 
Verse 20. [8 Who indeed, instead of, Who verily.—M.] 
Ὁ But was manifested.—M.] 


[Cod. Sin. ξἘἀνεγνώσω.--ἔσχατοι τοῦ χρόνου.--(Ἐ τῶν xpdvwv)—M] 


Verse 21. bit Who through Him believe on God.—M. 


11 So that your faith and hope are on God.—M.] 


[αι :—So that your faith may also become hope in God.—M.] 


Cod. Sin. Ἐξἐγείρον τ.---}1.} 


CHAP. I. 13-21. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 13. Wherefore, Διό refers to all the 
preceding account of the possession (by grace) 
of the elect. The New Testament state of grace 
is mainly designed to beget a perfect hope in the 
future consummation and perfecting of salvation. 
This hope essentially facilitates the full use of sal- 
vation with a view to holiness, to which exhorta- 
tion is made in vy. 14, ete. Inv. 18, hope should 
pe regarded as the central and leading idea, the 
other exhortations being added as participles. 
The object of that hope is the grace, which man- 
ifests itself in σωτηρία, in perfect salvation. The 
preposition ἐπί does not indicate the ground and 
strength of hope as Steiger and Weiss maintain, 
for it is not contrary to the New Testament wsus 
loquendi to connect ἐπί with the object, cf. 1 Tim. v. 
5; Acts ix. 42; xi. 17; xxii. 19; Winer, 5th edi- 
tion, p. 241; 1 Jno. iii. 8; 2 Cor. i. 10; Acts xxiv. 
15.—Join τελείως not with νήφοντες but with ἐλπί- 
cate. The hope existing in its first beginnings 
shall become so. firm, that no suffering shall be 
able to shake it, and that it shall embrace what- 
ever it contains in itself, and that it shall ever 
continue to the end. [ita, ut nihil disideretur.— 
Wahl.—M. ] 

For the grace—brought to you.—’Emi τὴν 
φερομένην ὑμῖν χάριν. The proper meaning of this 
expression depends on the interpretation of év 
ἀποκαλύψει. The verb ἀποκαλύπτειν occurs indeed 
in a wider sense, to denote the revelation of the 
truth to the mind, or that of Jesus Christ, Matt. 
sal, Ms ΧΗ ἢν Mike sey Palo ly geil) oiirnh, ass 
1 Cor. ii. 10. Hence ἀποκαλύψις μυστηρίου Rom. 
xvi. 25; and several times ἀποκαλύψις ᾿Ιησοῦ Χρισ- 
tov. Itis applied to inward revelation as contrast- 
ed with human instruction, Gal. 1.12; Rey. i. 1; 
ef. Eph. i. 17; iii. ὃ; 2 Cor. xii. 1. But ἡ ἀποκαλίνψις 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ without the article, and without 
further specification, is the constant expression 
denoting the visible return of Christ. It is never 
used of His first advent in the flesh, cf. ch. i. 7, 
Veo ΣΤ ΚΦ ΠΟΒΗ, 17... ROMs wilt [8.10 
ΟοΥ. 1. 7. Particularly decisive are vy. 5 and v. 7, 
where the reference is evidently to the second ad- 
vent of Christ in the flesh. So@cum. Theophylact, 
Grotius, Carpzoyv, Starke and others. It is diffi- 
cult to combine both ideas, viz.: an inward and 
an outward revelation (Calvin, Beza, Bengel), and 
a clear sense possible only on the consideration 
that the revelation or advent of Christ to judg- 
ment is necessarily bothinward and outward, The 
Apostle sees the advent of Christ as nearly im- 
pending, indeed as already present, ch. iv. 7; i. 
20, and consequently speaks of grace, not as to 
be brought unto them hereafter, but as already 
brought to them [even now bearing down upon 
them.—M.]. In this sense φέρειν is used in the 
LXX. at Gen. xxxiii. 11. Hence it is unnecessary 
to assume a confusion of the present and future 
tenses.—ydpic in the usual sense, not—ydpicya, 
as Grotius maintains. The objection of Weiss 
that the general biblical representation makes 
the second advent of Christ not a second reyela- 
tion of grace, but a revelation of righteous judg- 
ment, ch. iv. 5; Rom ii. 5, is met by clear pass- 
ages, e. g. Lk. xxi. 28. To the ungodly it will 
be a day of terror, but to believersa day of 


21 


honour and glory. Then, at the appearing of 
Christ, it will become manifest, what is meant by 
being in favour (by standing in grace) with God, 
Mal. iv. 2. It has already been announced to 
you by the prophets (verse 12) but by Christ it is 
laid at your door, yea, laid in your bosom. 

Gird up—sober.—’ Αναζωσάμενοι---νήἤφοντες. 
The perfect hoping is more clearly defined and 
confirmed by two participial additions. The first 
exhorts to girding up the loins. Peter thinks 
doubtless of the words of Jesus, ‘‘Let your loins 
be girded about,” Luke. xii. 25 and with a view to 
avoiding all misunderstanding, adds, ‘‘the loins 
of your mind.” Perhaps he alludes also to the 
significant commandment, ‘With your loins 
girded” Hx. xii. 11; and in that case the explan- 
ation of the addition is more simple and eyident, 
ef. Jer. i. 17; Eph. vi. 14.—The loins were girded 
by gathering the long folds of the wide under- 
garment in a girdle in order to supply the body 
with a firm stay and to remove all hinderances, 
when the object was to work, to set out on a jour- 
dey, to run, to carry a burden, to wrestle or to 
go to war. So the Christian should gird the 
διάνοια, gather up all distractedness and fickle- 
ness, and be astir and ready, that is, his thoughts 
and his will should be alive and concentrated 
when there is a call for work, for fight and for 
suffering. Beware of distractedness and idle- 
ness, but also of irritation, morbid excitement 
and exaggeration and eccentricity. Sobriety 
is to be the preventive of the latter. Both the 
girding and the sobriety are to be taken figura- 
tively, although sobriety of the body is taken 
for granted. Compare the exhortation at Luke 
xxi. 84, and Rom. xiii. 14. Elsewhere sobriety 
is Joined with vigilance that shall ward off all 
sleepiness and indolence, 1 These, v. 6; 1 Pet. y. 
8; sometimes it occurs, as here, alone, 1 Thes. 
v. 8; 2 Tim. iv. 5; 1 Pet. iv. 7. [Mentis sobrietas 
et vigilantia requiritur, sicque metaphora in lumbo- 
rum cinctura prius reposita ἐξηγετικῶς explicatur. 
Gerhard. ‘Non temperantiam solum in cibu et potu 
commendat, sed spiritualem potius sobrietatem, quum 
sensus omnes nostros continemus, ne se hujus mundi 
illecebris inebrient.’—-Calvin.—M.] The hope of 
Christians might become mixed up with foolish 
and fanatical fancies of the glories of a temporal 
Messianic kingdom and premature expecta- 
tions of the same as in the case of the Thessalo- 
nians (cf. 1 Thess. v. 6. 8; 2 Thess. ii. 2, etc.) 
against which the Apostle wishes to warn them. 
The present tense denotes necessary endurance in 
sobriety, while the Aorists ἐλπίσατε and ἀναζωσά- 
μενοι concentrate the lasting action, as it were 
into one moment and denote them to depend upon 
one principal act. 

Ver. 14. As children of obedience.—Who 
sets his hopes in grace alone acquires the impulse 
and ability to fulfil the commandment of holiness. 
The exhortation proper is contained in y. 15. The 
contrary of children of obedience, are children 
of disobedience, in whom the devil is working, 
Eph. ii. 2; v. 6; Col. iii. 6; who are conse- 
quently called children of wrath, Eph. ii. 8; 2 
Pet. ii. 14. Obedience comprises here, as in ch. 
i. 2. both the willing reception of the word of God 
and subjection to its precepts. Children of 
light, Eph. v. 8, are such as are born out of light 
and into light, with the property and calling 


22 


to shine as lights; so children of faith are such 
as are born out of faith and into the life of faith 
and obedience. Our heavenly Father is their be- 
getter, ch. i. 3.17, and assurance of faith cou- 
pled with obedience their mother, while on the 
other hand the devil is the father of unbelievers 
* Jno. viii. 44; and eyil concupiscence their mother. 


Ὡς denotes the reason, because you are children 
of obedience, cf. v. 19; ch. ii. 18; iv. 16. [τέκνα 
ὑπακοῆς. ‘This phraseology,” says Winer, 


Gram., 6th ed. p. 252, ‘‘is to be attributed to the 
vivid imagination of Orientals, which represents 
mental and moral derivation or dependence 
under the form of son or child. Sir. iv. 11. 
Children of disobedience are those who are related 
to ἀπείθεια as a child to a mother, those in whom 
disobedience has become predominant and a 
second nature.”’—M. | 

Not fashioning—ignorance.—The exhor- 
tation to holiness is now more clearly defined by 
reference to their ante-Christian state. As Chris- 
tians, you dare not pursue a course that is in 
unison with your former walk in sinful lusts. 
συσχηματίζεσθαι (from σχῆμα, the form of a thing, 
the fashion and mode of life, the manner in 
which one appears) to form or fashion one’s self 
after something, to conform to it, Rom. xii. 12; 
to make oneself like to, ef. ch. viii. 12; 1 Thess. 
y. 22. Lusts are not sensual impulses and wants 


only, but desires of what is different from what | 


God allows, desires of evil comprehensively de- 
scribed by John (1 John ii. 16) as the lust of the 
flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life; cf. 
Gal. ν. 19 ete. They include, also, the proud aims 
of ambition, of the lust of power and of the desire 
of knowledge. The lusts are more clearly de- 
fined by ‘in your ignorance.’ Sin darkens the 
understanding by the cloud of prejudices and 
false notions, cf. Rom. i. 21; Eph. iy. 18; and 
ignorance on the other hand, is the mother of 
many sins. A hint might be found in the cir- 
cumstance that the Epistle is addressed to former 
heathens, who were devoid of all clear moral 
consciousness, of all definite discrimination be- 
tween good and evil, between right and wrong; 
but the Jews also are charged with ignorance 
as the reason of their rejecting Christ, Acts. 
lili. 17, ete., and the degree to which their 
moral consciousness had been confused and 
clouded by the tenets of the Sanhedrim, is well 
known. This passage therefore is not decisive. 
In the case of believers, lusts belong to the past, 
inasmuch as their power is virtually broken and 
the spirit has the supremacy, although it must 
ever contend with the law in their members. 
Ver. 15. But according to the pattern 
of that Holy One who hath called you.— 
What is in the heart must appear in the life. 
Conform not to your former lusts but aspire after 
conformity to the Holy God; συσχηματιζόμενοι 
may beunderstood; so Heumenius and Theophylact. 
Calling is closely connected with election, being 
the realization and assurance of it. It takes 
place sometimes mediately sometimes immedi- 
ately; its end is the light and salvation of God 
out from the darkness, ch. ii. 21. If God calls, it 
is man’s duty to hear and to follow, cf. 1 Sam. iii. 
10. Thus he becomes, by constant yielding, a 
child of obedience. Weiss sees in the reference 
to the Holy God a hint of the Old Testament 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


character of the Epistle, but this is not conclu- 
sive per se. The Aorist Imperative donotes an 
action that is to take place immediately, cf. Winer, 
Gram. 6th ed. p. 329. 

All manner of conversation, in all your be- 
haviour toward God andyour neighbour. [Nulla 
sit pars vite que, non hune bonum sanctitatis odorem 
redoleat. Caly.—M.] 

Ver. 16. Because it is written.—dvér: gives 
the reason why holiness is necessary. For γένεσθε, 
Lachmann and Tischendorf read ἔσεσθε. The end , 
and aim of believers is the same in the New 
Testament and in the Old Testament, although 
the ways are different. Man’s holiness is effected 
by his participating in the holiness of God in 
Christ, Heb. xii. 10; Lev. xx. 8. 

Andifyecallupon as Father Him. //,does. 
not denote doubt, but the necessary consequence 
of the one from the other. [δὲ non dubitantis est, 
sed supponentis rem notam. Est enim omnium rena- 
torum communis oratio, Pater noster qui es in celis. 
Estius.—M.] You ought not to regard God as 
your Father nor call upon Him as such in the 
Lord’s Prayer, if you will not walk before Him 
in holy fear. The exhortation to a holy conver- 
sation is parallel to a conversation in the fear of 
God; both are founded on the ‘filial relation. 
ἐπικαλεῖσθε May mean simply to call or to call 
upon or pray to. Gerhard recognized already a 
reference to the Lord’s Prayer. If you confess 
before the world in your prayer that God is at 
once your Father and Judge, then . . .; ef. ch. 
i. 14; ii. 2; Matt. v. 45. 48; Luke vi. 35. In 
the Old Testament God is called the Father of 
Israel on account of the peculiar covenant-rela- 
tion, into which He had entered with Israel, Mal. 
ii. 10; i. 6; Deut. xxxii. 6; οἵ. 2 Sam. vii. 14. The 
Apostle doubtless thinks here of Mal.i.6 ete. where 
a similar condition is found, where God’s relation 
of Father and Master is made the reason of an 
exhortation to reverence, where at y. 8 and 9 the 
question is twice asked, ‘‘Will He regard your 
persons?” and where ch. ii. 2, the judicial reve- 
lation of God is mentioned, ef. ii. 9; x. 12; iii. 
5. 18; [S. Barnabas, Ep. 4; ‘* Meditemur timorem 
Dei, Dominus non accepta persona judicat mundum ; 
unusquisque secundum quod facit accipiet.—M. ] 

Who without respect of persons—work. 


πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν---- Ω55 NU) , Luke xx. 21 


is to regard the person, to take cognizance of out- 
ward relations, to make injurious distinction be- 
tween rich and poor, the talented and the un- 
talented, high and low, citizens and strangers, 
James ii. 4. God judges very differently; He 
looks at the heart and the character of men and 
at their exhibition in deeds. Justification at the 
last judgment depends upon the inward state and 
the outward works of believers and unbelievers. 
So taught our Lord Himself, Matt. xvi. 27; vii. 
19; xxv. 31 οἷοι; and with this agree John, Rev. 
XxUi.12; 7.; ii. 11; John ch: yi 51; ef. ch. xiii. 
15; James, ch. ii. 13 ete.; Peter, 1 Peter ii. 12 and 
Paul, Rom. ii. 6 ete.; viii. 13; 2 Cor. v.10; Eph. 
vi. 8; Col. iii. 24. 25; Gal. vi. 7-9. The Scrip- 
tures uniformly teach that forgiving grace is not 
conditioned by any work; it is absolutely free 
and unmerited and presupposes nothing beyond 
a penitent mind and an appropriating of the 
righteousness of Christ; but it insists upon a 


CHAPTER I. 13-21. 


23 


life corresponding with the will of God, and even 
supplies the needed strength to lead it. Faith 
must work by love, Gal. v. 6. It is the living 
root of all good works, while unbelief is the father 
of every sin. God looks upon the life of a man 
as one connected work. Hence we have here the 
singular ἔργον as at Matt. xvi. 27 πρᾶξις; for God 
looks at the one source of all our work, on our 
relation to the truth revealed in our conscience and 
in His word. But since all rational creatures ought 
to know the perfect justice of His decision, He 
judges them according to their works and here all 
mankind fall into only two classes. There is no 
inconsistency between this passageand John v. 22, 
where it is said that the Father judgeth no man, 
but hath committed all judgment unto the Son 
[for, as Didymus says, the Father is the fons 
judicit, judicante filio Pater est qui judicat.—M. ], 
just as the creation of the world is ascribed to 
the Father, although mediated by the Son, John 
1.1 ‘ete.; οἵ. 1 Peter iii: 12.22; iv. 6; vs 4; 2 
Peter ii. 9. [John v. 22 clearly implies that He 
who has delegated the judgment to the Son is 
the Judge.—M. | 

In fear.—This does by no means militate, 
as Weiss maintains, against the Petrine and 
Johannean fundamental conceptions of the Chris- 
tian life, as expressed Rom. viii. 15; 2 Tim. i. 7; 
1 John iy. 18. These passages speak of a slavish 
fear which in believers makes room to filial love; 
filial fear and dread remains also in the children 
of God, while they continue in a state of imper- 
fection; it flows from the contrast between them- 
selves and God, from their dependence on Him 
and theirremembrance of His holiness and justice, 
from the possibility of a relapse, ef. Phil. ii. 12, 
and mostly exhibits itself as a holy fear to grieve 
his love, to displease Him and to provoke His 
disfavour. Calvin: ‘“‘Fear is here opposed to 
security,” cf. Rom. xi. 20; 2 Cor. vii. 1; 2 Peter 
m1. 17; Ps. xxxiv. 10; xix. 10.—A reason of 
fear is also contained in the additional clause: 
‘the time of your sojourning,’ while you tarry 
here below among strangers. You are not yet 
at home, but only on the way; like seafaring men 
you may possibly be cast on a strange coast. At 
all events you must fight your way through the 
world’s hatred. John xy. 19. 

[ Wordsworth: Here is a connected series of 
arguments and motives to holiness, derived from 
a consideration, 

1. Of the holy nature of Him whom we invoke 
as Father, whose children we are, whom therefore 
we are bound to imitate and to obey. 

2. Of His office as Judge, rewarding every man 
according to his work, whom therefore we ought 
to fear. 

8. Of Christ’s office as Redeemer, and of His 
nature as an all-holy Redeemer, paying the costly 
price of His own blood to ransom us from a state 
of unholiness, and purchasing us to Himself, 
with His blood. Therefore we are not our own, 
but His; and being His, bought by His blood, 
we owe Him, who is the Holy One, the service 
of love and holiness. Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 19. 20; Eph. 
i. 7. 14; and Clem. Rom. i. 7. ἀτενίσωμεν εἰς τὸ 
αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἴδωμεν ὡς ἔστι. τίμιον TH Θεῷ 
πατρὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκχυθέν. 
ef. S: Aug. Serm. 36. 


4. Of our transitory condition in this life. On 


the special allusion in παροικία, sojourning see 
ch. ii. 11. 

5. Of the gift of the spirit of holiness. 

6. Of our new birth by the living Word of 
God.—M. ] 


Ver. 18. Forasmuch as ye know.—The 
consideration of the inestimable benefit of salva- 
tion supplies a new argument for aspiration to 
holiness of mind and conversation, vy. v. 18. 19. 
Bede gives the right connection. ‘‘In proportion 
to the price at which you have been redeemed 
from the corruption of carnal life should be your 
fear not to grieve your Saviour’s heart by a re- 
lapse, for the punishments will correspond to the 
worth of the ransom.” This knowledge is the 
knowledge of faith, flowing from the fundamental 
consciousness of Christians, cf. ch. 111. 9; vy. 9; 
James i. 3. 


Redeemed.—Avzpovv denotes not any release 
or deliverance, but to release by payment of a 
corresponding ransom. It corresponds to the 


Hebrew bya and ie, Ex. vi. 6; Ps. lxxiv. 


2; Ixxvil. 16; cvi. 10; Deut. vii. 8; ix. 26; Jer. 
xy. 21; xxxi. 11. So Christ says that He was 
giving His life as a ransom for many, Matt xx. 
28: cf. Mark x. 45; 1 Tim. ii. 6; Titus ii. 14. 
The comparison of the blood of Christ with gold 
and silver proves that the word must be taken in 
its original sense. ἐξαγοράζειν is used in the 
same sense at Gal. iii. 138; 1 Cor. vi. 20; vii. 23; 
Rey. νυ. 9. The manner in which the redemption 
has been effected, is therefore the production 
and payment of an equivalent, viz.: the satisfac- 
tion, the substitution, cf. Eph. vy. 2; 1. 7; Rom. 
111. 24; Heb. ix. 15.—Who received the ransom? 
Not the devil as maintained by some, but the 
Supreme Lawgiver and Judge. The justice of 
God, outraged by sin, was satisfied—the satisfac- 
tion itself, however, being appointed by the love 
of God Himself; allusions to which are even 
found in the sacrifices of the Old Testament, Lev. 
xvii. 11. Because this last passage states that the 
soul of the flesh is in the blood and that it is the 
blood which maketh atonement by the soul, cf. 
v. 14; blood is designated as the means of atone- 
ment both here and Rom. iii. 24. 25; v. 8. 9; 
while elsewhere the soul, the life of Christ is 
said to have been given. Blood has atoning 
virtue, for ‘‘without shedding of blood is no re- 
mission,” Heb. ix. 22. Redemption relates there- 
fore primarily to the curse and guilt of sin and 
secondarily to its enslaving power. The two 
ideas are not very sharply separated in Holy 
Writ, cf. ch. ii. 24; Is. 111. 7. It is most dear, 
most precious blood because it is undefiled by 
sin and passion and because it is the blood of 
the God-man and more valuable by far than the 
blood of many thousand valiant warriors. The 
addition v. 19, ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου, etc., 
confirms our explanation. ὡς indicates a well- 
known reason and refers to Is. 1111. While in 
Isaiah the figure of the Lamb denotes imme- 
diately only the patient, silent suffering of the 
Messiah in His atoning death, the predicates used 
by the Apostle, clearly relate to sacrificial lambs, 
and particularly to the Paschal Lamb, cf. John 
i. 29. 36. Every sacrificial lamb had to be 
without blemish, Lev. iv. 32; iii. 6; xxii. 20 etc.; 


24 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


i. 10; xii. 6; xiv. 10; Numb. xxviii. 3. 11; Ex. 
xii. 5. Christ as the Spiritual Sacrificial Lamb 
(1 Cor. ν. 7; John xix. 386) was perfectly pure 
within and unstained by sin without, as Bengel 
rightly explains. ‘Jn se non habet labem, neque 
extrinsecus maculam contrazit.’’? Cf. 1 John iii. 5; 
2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. vii. 26; Eph. v. 27. From 
what are the children of God redeemed? 

From your vain conversation, inherited 
from your fathers. [So the German.—M. ] 
This describes the being of this world as un- 
true, as having its root in appearances, and as 
deyoid of all foundation, strength and vitality, 
ef. Rom. i, 21; Eph. iv. 17; 1 Cor. iii. 20; 2 
Peter ii. 18; Rom. viii. 20. Its main stay and 
support lies in the force of habits, ideas, views, 
principles and maxims transmitted from father 
to child through successive generations. Men 
justify their ways, saying, ‘Such was the prac- 
tice of our fathers and our forefathers,’ and 
continue in the bonds of error and sinful lusts. 
Caloy. explains πατροπαραδότου of original sin and 
of imitating paternal examples. The deep- 
rootedness of this vain conversation notwith- 
standing, deliverance and redemption from it is 
found in the death and blood of Jesus Christ. 
The Apostle does not specify how the atonement 
of Christ effects redemption from the power of 
sin; we may doubtless supply this solution (cf. 1 
Peter ii. 24) thus: having been redeemed from the 
curse of the law by the blood of Jesus, we are 
enabled to be cleansed from sin, to be united to 
God and to approach Him with joy and courage. 
The Holy Spirit’s power is present to deliver us 
from the dominion of sin.—Xpcorov, an ex- 
planatory addition serving as a transition to 
what follows. 

Ver. 20. The personality and work of Christ 
were neither the natural result of the world’s 
development nor the suddenly formed decree of 
God in time [as distinguished from eternity, M. ], 
as if after the lapse of four thousand years He 
had suddenly thought of contriving this way of 
salvation, but Christ was destined and ordained 
from before the foundation of the world to re- 
deem us by His blood; hence the prophets did 
foretell His life and sufferings, His death and 
glorious exaltation, vv. 11.12. The antithesis 
φανερωθέντος does not warrant the positive conclu- 
sion that the Apostle thinks of the real (opposed 
to ideal) preéxistence of Christ. The sense might 
beas follows: The Messiah having ideally existed 
in the Spirit of God, in the fulness of time be- 
came also really manifest. But reverting to v. 
11, where mention is made of the Spirit of Christ 
in the prophets, and considering that correctly 
speaking the φανεροῦν, is the manifestation of a 
previously hidden existence, and that while be- 
lievers are said to have been fore-ordained it is 
never affirmed that they were manifested, we 
feel inclined to agree with Lutz and Schumann 
that the real preéxistence of Christ is probably 
presupposed here; φανεροῦν, however, relates also 
to the continuing manifestation of Christ by the 
preaching of the Gospel. 

Before the foundation of the World.— 
καταβολῆ, the act of καταβάλλεσθαι denotes lay- 
ing something down, laying the foundation; 
applied to the foundations of the earth (Job 
xxxviii. 6; Prov. viii. 29)—founding, creation, 


ef. John xvii. 24; Eph. i. 4; 1 Cor. ii. 7; 2 Tim. 
i. 9; Tit. i. 2. 8; Col. i. 26. The remark of 
Oettinger that the creation of the world is called 
καταβολή because the Visible originated from the 
Invisible by a fall, is ingenious, but far-fetched 
and untenable. He maintains that the word sig- 
nifies casting off. ’Em’ ἐσχάτων τῶν χρόνων; Tisch- 
endorff and Lachmann read ἐσχάτου. Χρόνοι pe- 
riods of time shorter than aeons. The καιροί are 
definite portions of those periods. They are 
called, Acts ii. 17; 2 Tim. iii. 1, the last days. 
They form, since they have a similar character, 
a unit, and are called on that account the last 
hour, 1 John ii. 18, or the last time, Jude 18. 
It would seem to signify therefore the period 
from the glorification of Christ to His first visible 
advent [vulgo, his second advent, M.] ef. νυ. 5; 
but ἐπί may also mean, ‘‘near at hand,’ a sense 
in which it may be shown to be used at least 
with local reference.—Ecydrwv to be taken as 
neuter on account of the succeeding Article. 

For you who.—Believers are the end and 
aim in the manifestation of the Redeemer: you 
may therefore view it, as if Christ had come for 
you only, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 7. The design of His 
manifestation was to make you also believers. 
You owe it to Him that you are able to believe 
(di αὐτοῦ). Weiss gives the following connection: 
The manifestation of Christ effected by means 
of the preaching of the Gospel (ch. i. 12) and 
culminating in His resurrection and exaltation to 
glory, begets believing trust in God, who did 
work this miracle of miracles. He that has done 
such great things is also able (humanly speak- 
ing) to accomplish the greatest and highest ex- 
pectations we can cherish. Thus faith becomes 
hope in God, who has done this miracle. Hope 
appears here as a new feature superadded to 
faith, cf. Rom. vy. 2; Eph. i. 18. [Your faith 
rests on Christ’s reswrrection—it was God who 
raised him; your hope on Christ’s glorification ; it 
is God who has given him that glory. Alford.—M. ] 
Εἰς Θέον signifies resting in, entering into God. 
Petr. Lomb. Credendo in Deum ire.—oore denotes 
sequence not purpose. The exhortation here 
reverts once more to vy. 12, with this difference, 
that what there is urged, is here supposed to 
exist. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1, The disciple of Jesus must intimately combine 
with confident repose in the grace of atonement, 
the desire After the pattern of God to become 
holy and to walk in holiness before Him, ν. 18-15. 

2. The state of Christians is marked by the 
singular characteristic that they must become what 
they are: born into lively hope, they have to 
learn daily to hope anew. They stand in faith 
and love, v. 5. 8, yet must ever suffer themselves 
to be anew excited thereto, v. 13. They are dead 
with Christ, Col. iii. 3, yet must daily mortify anew 
their sinful members, Col. iii. 5, ete. The riddle 
is solved by distinguishing between what we are in 
the eternal view of God and what in empirical 
reality, or between what we are in the new prin- 
ciple of life and what in its gradual development. 
That which is implanted in the idea and in the 
germ must be followed by a voluntary and all-sided 
development. [This sentence may have a misty 


CHAPTER I. 13-21. 


25 


es SSS 


air to some, but I found it difficult to give the 
sense of the original without a long circumlocu- 
tion. Light is shed upon it by the consideration 
that zdea is not used in the popular, but in the 
philosophical sense. It appears to come nearer 
to ideal than to idea proper.—M.] By the side 
of the new man there continues, until we die, 
the old man who must be crucified day by day. 

8. All exhortation to holiness of mind and 
conversation will prove ineffectual and unsuc- 
cessful, unless the firm foundation of it lies 
in confidence in the grace of God that meets us 
half-way in Christ, v.18. The hope to which 
that confidence gives rise, namely, the hope of 
the glorious possession of heaven, supplies the 
power of victory in view of the temptations 
and enjoyments of this earthly world. 

4. The agreement of the Old and New Testa- 
ments is evident from the circumstance that 
holiness, after the pattern of God is in both the 
chief requirement and end of our vocation. Com- 
pare the Sermon onthe Mount. The only differ- 
ence being that the idea of holiness in the New 
Testament is more profound and spiritual than 
in the Old. 

5. Justification at the last judgment will 
depend on our works; our works, whether flow- 
ing from faith or unbelief, will determine our 
respective destiny, v. 17; cf. Rom. ii. 18. 6. 7; 
Matt. xxv. 34;. Rey. xx. 12; 2 Cor. ix. 6. 

6. The blood of Jesus Christ is not the same 
as His death. Elsewhere also it is specially em- 
phasized as the means of redemption, the ransom, 
Προ τη απ ΧΟ ἐν ales ohmiyes Ὁ» blebs τ᾿ 20: 1x 
22); xiit..20; Acta xx. 28; Eph. 1.7; Col. 1.20; 
Le Ohn yeast Leva Θ᾽ κε wales los xa. 1. 
God’s law for the government of the world having 
been broken by sin, the blood of the holy God- 
Man is needed as an atonement, v. 19. 

7. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the seal 
set to the atoning virtue of His blood and at the 
same time the pledge of the perfecting of those, 
who as members of His body are united to Him, 
the head. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The tightened girdle of faith is a main essen- 
tial to the pilgrim passing through the world to 
neaven.—The loins serve the purposes of walking, 
warring and carrying; the powers of the soul 
corresponding to these purposes have need to 
be strengthened.—‘ The Christian in the heay- 
enly race, Must firmly set and keep his face, 
Fixed on Jerusalem.” —TERSTEEGEN. The blissful 
end of Christian hope, v. 15.—The grace offered 
by Christ is the solid foundation for the soul’s 
anchor to rest upon.—True faith is not an idle 
dream nor hollow talk.—The features of the re- 
generate exhibit the impress of their heavenly 
Father’s image.—Spiritual blindness both the con- 
sequence and cause of the dominion of sinful lusts. 
y. 14.—Fear of self-deception, relapse and new 
offences against God is the sure guardian of our 
hope.—How do we recognize the time of our visi- 
tation?—What glorious hopes flow from the glory 
which Christ has obtained from His Father? 
Starke. Would you be God’s child, you must 
imitate Him, Eph. y. 1.—v. 17. What a great 
alliance! a bought slave, preferred to the dis- 


tinction of an adopted child, it is to be hoped, 
will not complain of having to render to his 
Redeemer a reasonable and joyful service, after 
his former experience of the rudder and the 
whip.—If you meet with some adversity, think 
yourself for a night in uncomfortable quarters, 
you will have better accommodation when you 
get home.—You are greatly in error, and abuse 
the Gospel, if you consider all manner of yain 
conversation to belong to Christian liberty. In 
the work of salvation, redemption as the cause 
of salvation cannot be dissociated from the condi- 
tion annexed to it, which is the renunciation of 
every evil work—the two, redemption and renun- 
ciation should go hand-in-hand, Luke i. 74. 75.— 
We are bound to honour, love and obey our pa- 
rents and ancestors, but not to follow them in the 
vanity of conversation and sinful habits, Eph. vi. 
1.2; Matt. x. 87. Beware to form too low an opi- 
nion of any man, and still more to injure his soul’s 
welfare, for every one has been redeemed by the 
inestimable price of the blood of Jesus.—If the 
atoning blood of Jesus is to benefit us, we must 
also carry the innocence, gentleness and patience 
of the Lamb of God, Col. i. 22.—Who, after the 
Apostle’s doctrine preaches another Gospel is 
not of God, but of the devil, and he is by no 
means to be heard, Gali. 8. 

Lisco:—Motives to zeal for holiness: (a) the 
grace offered to Christians; (6) the blessedness of 
their filial relation to God; (c) the redemption ef- 
fected by Jesus Christ.—The real character of 
Christ’s redeemed people: (a) they are full of faith 
in God and Jesus Christ; (2) earnestly struggling 
with sin they strive after holiness; (c) they walk in 
righteousness and obedience to the command- 
ments of God; (d) they abound in zeal to do good 
and are rich in faithful love of the brethren.— 
How the preciousness and assurance of our hope 
founded on the resurrection of Christ should 
influence our whole behaviour. The value of 
the blood of Christ: (1) what makes it invalua- 
ble: (a) the holiness of Him who shed it; (6) the 
glory of the work accomplished by it; (2) what 
is the evidence of our appreciation of the value 
of it. 

Besser, in illustration of v. 19, supplies the 
following narrative: A wealthy and kind English- 
man once bought in the slaye-market a poor negro 
for twenty pieces of gold. His benefactor pre- 
sented him moreover with a certain sum of money, 
that he might buy therewith a piece of land 
and furnish himself with a home. Am I really 
free? May I go whither I will? cried the negro 
in the joy of his heart; well, let me be your 
slave, Massa: you have redeemed me, and I owe 
allto you. This touched the gentleman to the 
quick: he took the negro into his service, and he 
never had a more faithful servant. But, said 
that Englishman, I ought to learn a lesson from 
my grateful servant, which until then, alas, had 
little engaged my attention, namely, what is 
meant by the words: ‘‘Ye know that ye were not 
redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and 
gold—but with the precious blood of Christ.” 

[Vur. 19. Grace is bearing down upon, coming 
to meet the Christian who with girded loins sets 
out on his pilgrimage. The prodigal son was 
met by his Father.—M.]_ Faith establishes the 
heart on Jesus Christ, and hope lifts it up, being 


26 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


on that rock, over the head of all intervening | robes and a beggar’s cloak; but to God they are 
dangers, crosses and temptations, and sees the | all one, all these petty grievances vanish in com- 
glory and happiness that follow after them.— |! parison of His own greatness; men are great and 


Gather up your affections, that they hang not 
down to hinder you in your race and so in your 
hopes of obtaining; and do not only gather them 
up, but tie them up, that they fall not down again, 
ow if they do, be sure to gird them straiter than 
before.—We walk through a world where there 
is much mire of sinful pollutions and therefore 
cannot but defile them; and the crowd we are 
among will be ready to tread on them, yea our 
own feet may be entangled in them and so make 
us stumble and possibly fall. 

Lerauton:—Ver. 14. The soul of man uncon- 
verted is no other but a den of impure lusts, 
wherein dwell pride, uncleanness, avarice, malice, 
etc. Just as Babylon is described Rey. xviii. 2; 
or as Is. xiii. 21. Were a man’s eyes opened he 
would as much abhor to remain with himself in 
that condition, ‘‘as to dwell in a house full of 
snakes and serpents,’ as St. Austin says. As the 
offices of certain persons are known by the garb 
or livery they wear, so transgressors: where we 
see the world’s livery we see the world’s servants; 
they fashion or habit themselves according to 
their lusts; and we may guess that they have a 
worldly mind by their conformity to worldly 
fashions. 

CLARKE:—Obedience to God is as much the 
mark of right knowledge, as a sinful life is the 
sure sign of ignorance of God. 

Ver. 15. Summa religionis est imitart quem colis 
(In Lerauron).—Ciarke:—Heathenism scarcely 
produced a god whose example was not the most 
abominable; their greatest gods, especially, were 
paragons of impurity; none of their philosophers 
could propose the objects of their adoration, as 
objects of imitation. 

Lerauton:—VeER. 17. This fear is not coward- 
ice, it doth not debase, but elevate the mind, 
for it drowns all lower fears, and begets true 
fortitude and courage to encounter all danger for 
the sake of a good conscience and the obeying 
of God. The righteous is as bold as a lion, Proy. 
xxviii. 1. He dares do any thing but offend God: 
and to dare to do that is the greatest folly, and 
weakness, and baseness in the world. From this 
fear have sprung all the generous resolutions 
and patient sufferings of the saints and martyrs 
of God; because they durst not sin against Him, 
therefore they durst be imprisoned, and impoy- 
erished and tortured, and die for Him. Thus the 
prophet sets carnal and godly fear as opposite, 
and the one as expelling the other, Is. viii. 12. 
18. And our Saviour, Lk. xii. 4, ‘Fear not them 
which kill the body, but fear him which after he 
hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea, I 
say unto you fear Him.” Fear not, but fear, and 
therefore fear, that you may not fear.—He made 
all the persons and he makes all those differences 
Himself, as it pleaseth Him; therefore He doth 
not admire them as we do; no, nor at all regard 
them: we find very great odds betwixt stately 
palaces and poor cottages, betwixt a prince’s 


small compared one with another; but they all 
amount to, just nothing in respect of Him; we 
find high mountains and low valleys on this earth, 
but compared with the vast compass of the 
heavens, it is all but as a point, and hath no sen- 
sible greatness at all. 

[Our sojourn on earth is a state of probation, 
from which the fear of God is inseparable.—M. ] 

[Ver. 18. The doctors of the synagogue had 
delivered traditions to the Jews which made 
the worship of God vain, Matt. xv. 9; and the 
Gentiles sought to justify their vain idolatry on 
the plea of tradition, saying (on the authority of 
Plato, Zim. p. 1053 E. and Cicero, de Nat. Deor. 
8, n. 3.6.) That they ‘were not to be moved, 
by any persuasions, from the religion which they 
had received from their forefathers.’’—M. } 

[Ver. 19. ‘All glory be to Thee, almighty God, 
our heavenly Father, for that Thou, of Thy tender 
mercy, didst give Thine only Son Jesus Christ to 
suffer death upon the cross for our redemption ; 
who made there (by His one oblation of Himself 
once offered) a full, perfect and sufficient sacri- 
fice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the 
whole world.” Book of Common Prayer, Com- 
munion Office.—M. | 

[Ver. 20. The Jews say, that ‘‘ When God cre- 
ated the world, He held forth His hand under 
the throne of glory, and created the soul of the 
Messiah and His company, and said to Him, 
Wilt thou heal and redeem my sons, after six 
thousand years? He answered, Yes. God said 
to Him, If so, wilt thou bear chastisements, to 
expiate their iniquity, according to what is writ- 
ten, (Is. 1111. 4) ‘Surely, He bore our griefs?’ 
He answered, I will endure them with joy.” 
And to this representation of this covenant made 
with the Messiah ‘before the creation of the 
world” it may be the Apostle here refers. In the 
style of Philo, he is ἀΐδιος Λόγος, **the Eternal 
Word, the first born and the most ancient Son of 
the Father, by whom all the species were framed.” 
This therefore is according to the received 
opinion of the Jews. Whitby citing Cartw. 
Mellif. I. p. 2974, 75, and De Plaut. Noe, p. 169, D. 
—M. ; 

pan :—Ver. 21. Whenyou look through a 
red glass, the whole heavens seem bloody; but 
through pure unclouded glass, you receive the 
clear light, that is so refreshing and comfortable to 
behold. When sin unpardoned is betwixt, and we 
look on God through that, we can perceive nothing 
but anger and enmity, in His countenance; but 
make Christ once the medium, our pure Redeemer, 
and through Him, as clear transparent glass, the 
beams of God’s favourable countenance shine in 
upon the soul; the Father cannot look upon his 
well beloved Son, but graciously and pleasingly. 

[Redemption flows from the precious bloed of 
Christ, faith and hope from His glorious resurrec- 
tion.—M. } 


CHAPTER I. 22-25, 


27 


' CHAPTER I. 22-25. 


ANALYsIs :—Exhortation to pure and fervent brotherly love, as characteristic of those who have been born to love by the 
life-seed of the eternal word. 


22 


Seeing ye have purified’ your souls in obeying? the truth through the Spirit® unto un- 


feigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with‘ a pure heart fervently :5 
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, 


24 which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh’ zs as grass, and all the 


glory of 


man® as the flower of grass.2 The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth 


25 away: But the word of the Lord endureth forever. 


the gospel is preached unto you. 


And this is the word which by 


Verse 22. Π ἡγνικότες, having purified; castificantes, Vulg., making chaste, Wiclif—M.] 


20 7aKk07 —in obedience of, Germ.—M. | 


3$ca πνεύματος omittedin A BC. Cod. Sin., inserted in Rec. K. L.—M.] 


{[6cea—by, nor through, see vy. 33.—M.] 


[tex καθαρᾷς. éx, out of, from, Germ.; omitted in A B, inserted in Rec. C. K. L.—M.] 


[Cod. Sin. ἘξΞκαρδιἀληθιν ή ς.---Μ.] 
5 éxTev@s—=intente.M.] 


Verse 23. fs ζῶντος Θεοῦ kat wevovtos—by the word of God living and enduring.—M.] 


(Cod. Sin. omits εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα .--Μ.] 
Verse 24. [7 διότι --- Ῥθοδι86.---Μ.]} 
[38ἀνθρώπονυ in Rec. [Ὁ αὐτῆς. 


If the latter reading is preferred, we must render “and all the glory 


of it,” ἡ. 6. of flesh. So Wiclif and Reims.—M.] 
[9ϑ9ϑέξηράνθη, ἐξέπεσεν, aorists, statement asin a narrative; viz.: the grass hath withered and the flower 


thereof is fallen away; Wiclifand Reims: Exaruit fenum et flos ejus decidit. 


Vulgate. German.—M.] 


[Cod. Sin. ὦ σι (**improb.).—y δόξ αὐτοῦ .---ὸ  δόξ. αὐτῆς ἀνθ .---Υιποιέ αὐτοῦ .---Μ.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 22. Connection. The exhortation (v. 13) 
“ Hope perfectly for the grace,” fully corresponds 
to the second leading exhortation, ‘‘Love one 
another fervently.” The former was founded (in 
a participial sentence) on the concentration of 
thoughts and constant sobriety; the latter is 
founded (also in a participial sentence) on purify- 
ing the soul in obedience of the truth. Brotherly 
love must be the exponent of the nature, strength 
and fruit of regeneration. 

Purified.—‘Ayvifew denotes the laying aside 
of evil, the putting off lust, hatred, envy and hy- 
pocrisy ; ἁγίαζειν, on the other hand, the positive 
putting on the opposite good and growing therein, 
ef. ch. ii. 1. The Perfect shows that the purify- 
ing does not belong exclusively to the past but 
is affected by the imperative form ἀγαπᾶτε. [The 
German reads so (instead of ἀγαπήσατε) on the 
authority of the Codex Colbertinus Cent. XI.— 
M.], and indicates that such pure love cannot 
exist without the antecedent purifying of the 
soul. The Apostle means a constantly needed 
purifying, not one merely begun in regeneration. 
Augustine: ‘Chastity of the soul consists in sin- 
cerity of faith and purifying the heart from un- 
chaste flames.” 

In obedience of the truth.—By absolute 
subjection to the truth given in the word of God, 
by keeping it and causing it to work in the heart. 
Obedience to the faith and moral obedience are 
again comprised in one. Truth has a purifying 
and separating power, removing all obstacles to 
the exercise of brotherly love, such as selfishness, 
obstinacy, self-sufficiency, men-pleasing, ambi- 
- tion, flattery, in fact, all manifestations of egotism. 
Secause true believers are the children of God, 


ch. i. 8. 14. 17, they should act as brethren 
one to another. This is one of the principal 
commandments of Christ Himself, and conse- 
quently one of the main ends of holiness, Matt. 
xxii. 40; Mk. xii. 81; Luke x. 28; Jno. xiii. 34. 
35; cf. 1 Pet. ii. 17; v. 9. But because selfish- 
ness, deceit, hypocrisy and flattery are frequently 
hidden under the cloak of love, the word ἀνυπό- 
κριτος is added. 

By the spirit, is wanting in several MSS. If, 
as is probable, authentic, it should be joined 
to ἡγνικότες not to ὑπακοή. It denotes the Holy 
Spirit, by whom alone the soul can be puri- 
fied, Acts xv. 8.9; Rom. viii. 13; 1 Cor. xii. 3; 
Eph. vy. 9. πνεύματος is also without the article 
in ch. i. 2. 

Unfeigned love of the brethren.—Broth- 
erly love being thus rendered possible, its free 
and actual exhibition ought to follow. There 
being two kinds of love, pure and impure, heay- 
enly and earthly, the Apostle expressly adds, ‘‘out 
of a pure heart.” Lachman strikes καθαρᾶς out of 
the text. Purity of heart is equally demanded 
in other passages, Matt. v. 8; 1 Tim. i. 5; 2 Tim. 
ii, 22. Bengel nicely remarks that purifying 
qualities, as antecedents to brotherly love, are 
also insisted upon at 2 Peter i. 5. 6. 

ἐκτενῶς is a very pregnant addition. It denotes 
stretching out, straining, putting forth strenuous 
effort, hence (a) by straining and extending every 
energy, by untiring elasticity, (b) by sustained 
perseverance, (c) by extending it to such brethren 
as appear less worthy of love. Weiss: ‘With 
lasting, persevering energy, that cannot be tired 
out by the cumulating guilt of our neighbour,” ch. 
iv. 8. The possibility of such a mode of conduct 
belongs to the state of regeneration, y. 23; ef. 
Matt. xviii. 21. 22; see above ony. 8. Steiger. 
‘‘As natural relationship produces natural affec- 


. 


28 


tion, so spiritual relationship produces spiritual 
affection.”’ It is lasting, because emanating from 
an eternal source of life. 

Ver. 23. Of (out of) incorruptible sowing. 
σπορά denotes begetting, sowing, not seed, as many 
translate, cf. John i. 18. Regeneration is not 
the effect of a transient act of begetting, but of 
the power of the Holy Ghost. The means He 
uses is the word of God, Jas. i. 18; 1 Cor. iv. 15. 
Paul laying claim in the latter passage to the 
new birth or new-begetting of the Corinthians 
means nothing beyond his having been an instru- 
ment of the Holy Ghost. [The full idea is 
brought out by noticing the force of the preposi- 
tions ἐξ and dia. The Apostle says, ‘Being 
born again, not of’’—é£, that is, out of—‘ cor- 
ruptible seed” (like semen humanum), but out of 
“incorruptible begetting’’—d.a—‘‘ by means of 
the word of God.” ‘The ἐξ of origination rests in 
God himself, the Father, who begat us, of His 
own will: the διὰ of instrumentality moves on and 
abides forever.’ Alford.—M. ] 

By meansof the word of God living and 
abiding forever.—ZévToc καὶ μένοντος belong to 
λόγου, as is evident from the sequel, v. 25. The 
Apostle does not speak of the Being of God, but 
of the nature of the word of God. It is living, 
ef. Heb. iv. 12, because it has life in itself, is 
indued with eternal, with divine power and there- 
fore begets life in its turn, cf. Acts vii. 38. 
Luther: ‘If I put the cup, containing the wine, 
to my lips, I drink the wine without swallowing 
the cup. Such also is the word, which brings 
the voice; it sinks into the heart and becomes 
alive, while the yoice remains without and passes 
away. Itis therefore a Divine power, yea, it is 
God himself, ef. Ex. iv. 11.” It is able to kill, 
Rom. vii. 10, and to make alive. —Mévovtoc εἰς τὸν 
αἰῶνα. (The last three words are wanting in 
important MSS. and therefore omitted by Gries- 
bach and others). It remains forever in its na- 
ture, power and effects. [Dean Jackson on the 
Creed, book 7, ch. 28, vol. 7, p. 270: ‘If Christ's 
flesh and blood be the seed of Immortality, how 
are we said to be born again by the word of God 
which liveth and abideth forever? Is this Word, 
by which we are born, the same with that im- 
mortal seed, of which we are born? It is the 
same, not in nature, but in person. May wenot, 
in that speech of St. Peter, by the Word, under- 
stand the word preached unto us by the Ministers 
who are God’s seedsmen? In a secondary sense 
we may, for we are begotten and born again by 
preaching, as by the instrument or means. Yet 
born again we are by the Lternal Word (that is, 
by Christ Himself), as by the proper and efficient 
cause of our new birth. . . And Christ Himself, 
who was put to death for our sins, and raised 
again for our justification, is the Word which 
we all do or ought to preach. The Son of God 
manifested in the flesh, was that Word which, in 
St. Peter’s language, is preached by the Gospel, 
and if we do not preach this Word unto our 
hearers, if all our sermons do not tend to one of 
these two ends, either to instruct our auditors in 
the articles of their creed concerning Christ, or 
to prepare their ears and hearts that they may 
be fit auditors of such instructions, we do not 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


preach the Gospel unto them, we take upon us 
the name of God’s ambassadors,.or of the minis- 
ters of the Gospel, in vain.” —M.] 

[A Lapide: ‘This sense isa genuine and sublime 
one, because in our Regeneration, Christ Himself 
is personally communicated to us, so that the 
Deity thenceforth dwells in us asina Temple, and 
we are made partakers of the Divine Nature, 2 
Pet. i. 4. See James 1. 18-21.—M.] 

Ver. 24. διότι introduces the proof of the dif- 
ference between corruptible begetting and incor- 
ruptible. The begetting is like the instrument 
of begetting. The words quoted by Peter are 
found Is. xl. 7, ete.; his citation is free, not literal. 
Flesh signifies here the whole living world, inas- 
much as it is under the power of transitoriness 
and surrounded by weakness. Bengel: ‘The 
old man, man of the old birth, especially self- 
righteousness, on which man is wont to found 
his confidence.’’ Calvin: ‘‘Whatever is highly 
esteemed in things human, beauty, bodily strength, 
learning, riches, posts of honour.’”’ Itincludesalso 
the life of the natural mind, as long as it remains 
unoccupied and without the animation of the 
Spirit of God. Hence the Scripture speaks of 
fleshly-mindedness, Rom. viii. 5-7, and reckons 
also hatred, anger and pride among the works of 
the flesh, 1 Cor. iii. 8; Gal. v. 19; Eph. ii. 3; 
Col. ii. 18. The flesh as well as the spirit, has 
its glory and flower. It appears robed in the 
forms of beauty, wisdom, nobleness, patriotism 
and even of holiness. It develops itself in forms 
of government, in art and science, in philosoph- 
ical systems and theories of religion, so far as 
they are not penetrated by the Spirit of God. 
Hence they vanish as fast as they grow, yea 
faster—like the flower of grass (Griesbach and 
others read αὐτῆς after δόξα. See Appar. Crit. 
above), whose leaves fall asunder, cf. Ps. cil. 
15: xxxyil..2: James 1.10; Is..xl.6..7.. Peter, 
refers to the last passage as given by the LXX., 
where the past tense is used, which describes 
with graphie effect the rapidity of the change. 

Ver. 25. But the word of the Lord en- 
dureth forever, ever green and in vigour of life; 
it is continually valid and efficient, enduring to 
eternity, and so is whatever emanates from or ori- 
ginates in it, cf. Ps. cxix. 89; Luke xxi. 83. Lu- 
ther: “You need not open your eyes wide how 
you may get to the word of God; it is before your 
eyes, it is the word which we preach.” Deut. 
xxx. 11; Rom. x. 6, etc. The word of the Gos- 
pel preached to Christians is essentially one with 
the kernel of the word of the Old Testament, cf. 
Rom. xvi. 26; Eph. ii. 20; iii. 5.—Hic ὑμᾶς, it 
has been brought unto you and implanted in you. 
The circumstance of Peter taking for granted 
that his readers are familiar with the word of 
the Old Testament, furnishes a hint that he writes 
toJewish Christians. [Wordsworth: Thetrans- 
ition from the Incarnate Word to the spoken 
and written word, and vice versd, is, as might be 
anticipated, of not unfrequent occurrence in Holy 
Writ: see Heb. iv. 12; Jamesi. 18-28.—Observe, 
also, that St. Peter here returns to the principal 
person, Christ, and speaks of Him, who is the 
Living Word, as being also the Living Stone, ii, 
4.—M. ] 


CHAPTER I. 22-25. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1 The necessity of purifying the soul was 
recognized even in the systems of the philoso- 
phers, e. g., in the Platonic and Neoplatonic 
schools; but the only means of accomplishing it 
was unknown to them: subjection to revealed 
truth, appropriating and practising it. 

2. Purification must begin and without inter- 
ruption continue in the soul, the stronghold and 
seat of sin. 

8. Essential unity of the message of salvation 
in the Old and New Testaments, νυ. 25. 

4, Regeneration or new-birth, the first im- 
planting into the new, spiritual life, must be 
distinguished from quickening and conversion. 
The Scripture clearly teaches that regeneration 
takes place through Baptism by means of the word 
and through the Spirit who animates it, John iii. 
5; Tit. iii. 5; Rom. vi. 3; Gal. iii. 26. 27; Eph. 
vy. 25-27; 1 Peter iii. 21. Compare the lucid ex- 
position of Kurz in Christ. Religion (Christliche 
Religionslehre) p. 196. 197, 5th ed. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Incorruptible sowing or generation yields in- 
corruptible fruit, anew man. As is the origin 
of life, so are the effects that flow from it.—While 
the non-christian loves in Adam, the believer 
loves in Christ. The former passes off carnal 
inclination for true love.—Regeneration is not 
the completion but the beginning of Christianity. 
The word of God, which is intrinsically spirit 
and life must also become aliveinus. Itisa fire, 
but it cannot prove its power, as long as it 
touches us only superficially. 

Srarxe:—Hearty brotherly love comprises also 
brotherly correction, which should take place ina 
loving and gentle spirit, Gal. vi. 1.—The analogy 
between the word of God and seed in the field 
exhibits the following particulars: 1. The seed 
has in itself the power of growth, and does not 
receive it from the field. The word of God has 
power within itself and manifests itself as a 
spiritual growth. 2. The seed requires a well- 
prepared field; the word of God a soul ready to 
be qualified for receiving it and bearing fruit. 
8. The seed needs a sower to scatter it in due 
season and in the right manner; the word of 
God needs the office of teachers, or spiritual hus- 
bandmen. 4. The scattered seed must be har- 
rowed in, in order to be thoroughly mixed up 
with the soil and in order to grow above to strike 
root below; so the word of God, which is there- 
fore called the implanted word, Jamesi. 21. 5. 
The seed bears no fruit unless it be quickened by 
warm sunshine and fertile showers from above: so 
also the word of God, which although it has living 
power in itself, requires the supply of grace by 
the Holy Ghost. 6. Theseed of one kind, scattered 


29 


on differing soil, good, bad and indifferent, owing 
to the inequality of the soil, does not yield the 
same fruit: soit is with the word of God.—Chris- 
tianity insists not so much on a mere externally 
blameless conversation as on regeneration, Gal. 
vi. 15; Phil. 11. 5—We know no other word of 
God than that which was preached by Christ and 
the Apostles throughout the whole world, is put 
on imperishable record and still continues before 
our eyes. 

Lisco:—Of what passes away and of what re- 
mains. 

[Ver. 22. The properties of brotherly love. 
1. It is wnfeigned, more of the heart and the 
hand than of the lip. 2. Itis pure, beginning 
and ending in God. 3. It is fervent with all the 
energies of the soul on the stretch. The sympa- 
thy of the whole body with any injured or dis- 
eased member a Scriptural illustration.—M. ] 

[ LercHTon :—The true reason why there is so 
little truth of this Christian mutual love amongst 
those that are called Christians, is, because there 
is so little of this purifying obedience to the truth, 
whence it flows; faith unfeigned would beget 
this love unfeigned: men may exhort to them 
both, but they require the hand of God to work 
them in the heart. 

Ver. 24. The philosopher said of his country- 
men... ‘‘that they eat as if they meant to die 
to-morrow and yet build as if they were never to 
die.” —Archimedes was killed in the midst of his 
demonstration. Cf. Ps. cxlvi. 4.—We in our 
thoughts shut up death into a very narrow com- 
pass, namely, in the moment of our expiring; 
but the truth is, as the moralist observes, it goes 
through all our life; for we are still losing and 
spending it as we enjoy it, yea, our very enjoying 
it, is the spending it; yesterday’s life is dead to- 
day and so shall this day’s life be to-morrow.— 
M. 

[| What is the great defect in all human greatness 
and beauty—in earth-born riches and pleasures? 
—Transitoriness.—M. ] 

[Mackxnicut:—Ver. 25. This is a quotation 
from Is. xl. 6-8, where the preaching of the gos- 
pelis foretold and recommended from the consi- 
deration that every thing which is merely human, 
and among the rest, the noblest races of man- 
kind, with all their glory and grandeur, their ho- 
nour, riches, beauty, strength and eloquence; as 
also the arts which men have invented and the 
works they have executed, shall decay as the 
flowers of the field. But the gospel, called by 
the prophet the word of the Lord, shall be preached 
while the world standeth.—M. ] 

[ Lerauton :—As the word of God itself cannot 
be abolished, but surpasses the endurance of hea- 
ven and earth, as our Saviour teaches, and all at- 
tempts of men against the Divine truth of that 
word to undo it, are as vain asif they should 
consent to pluck the sun out of the firmament, so 
likewise is the heart of a Christian, it is immortal 
and incorruptible.—M. ] 


’ 


30 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


eee -Ξ--------------ὄἔ.-----------. --- ---- ὦ .---Ὁὦὦὠὠῳω ἈὠὈ 


CHAPTER II. 1-10. 


ANALYsIs :—Exhortation of the regenerate to nourish themselves with the word of God, and to grow in Christ, to build 


1 
2 


3,4 grow thereby ; If so bet ye have tasted that the Lord 7s gracious ὅ. 
2s y δ ξ 


τῶ Oo TF: CON 


themselves up on Him and to approve themselves a spiritual priesthood. 


Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and 
all evil speakings', As newborn babes, desire? the sincere milk of the word’, that ye 
To whom coming, 
as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God’, and precious, 
*Ye also, as *lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up 
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by" Jesus Christ. “Wherefore also it is con- 
tained in the Scripture, Behold,I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: 
and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.” Unto you therefore which be- 
lieve he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders 
disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and 
rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: where- 
unto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, 
a holy nation, a peculiar people”; that ye should shew forth" the praises” of him who 
hath called you out of darkness into’ his marvellous” light: Which in time past were 
not a people”, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy”, but 
now have obtained mercy”. 


Verse ᾿ι-Πκαταλαλία τωι θὰ so German; backbiting; Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva; detractions, 
Reims.—M. = 
[2é€rcnr00ynoa7e—Iong, yearn for, so German; covet, Wiclif—M.] 
(Cod. Sin. πᾶσαν ckatadAadiav.—M.] 
Verse 2.[8 λογικὸν ἄδολον yaAa=spiritual (Alford) guileless milk. Many important MSS. add after αὐξηθῆτε, 
εἰς cwtypiav.—M.] 
(Cod. Sin. αὐξη.θ. εἰς cwtynpiav.—M.] 
Verse 3.[* eiwe p=if, otherwise, German; if, that is, Alford.—M.] 
[5 χρηστὸ ς--ροοῦ, Geneva; sweet, Wiclif, Reims, Vulgate; pleasant, Tyndale.—M.] 
(Cod. Sin. * «i—M.] 
Verse 4.[° tpocepxomevot—nighing, Wiclif; approaching, Reims, Germ.—M.] 
7 rapa Oe o—with God, z. ¢., before God.—M.] 

Verse 5. [8 οἰκοδομεῖσθε, Imper.—be ye built up.—M.] 

9 λίθοι Cavres=living stones.—M.] 

° §ca—through, Germ.—M.] 

(Cod. Sin. ἐποικοδ.--πνεύματος (*#rvevmatix.)—to—@e@ without Article—M.] 

1 §.67.—for the which cause, Reims; because, Alford.—M. 

2 xkatacoxvvéy—ashamed, Germ., Tyndale, Geneva.—M. 

= Sin.ev yp.—*ém avtrov.—M.] 

Verse 7. [18 To you, then, who believe, is the honour,—so, substantially, Wiclif, Reims, Vulgate, Germ., Alford. See 

note below.—M.] 
[Cod, Sin. Ξὴ μι ν-τἀπιστοῦσιν--Έλιθοσ.--Μ.] 

Verse 8. ΠΕ And a stone of stumbling and rock of offence,—at which they stumble, Germ.—who stumble, Alford—be- 
ing disobedient to the word, de Wette, Alford; who believe not on the word, Germ. At any rate ἀπει- 
θοῦντες not προςκόπτουσι belongs to τῷ Adyw.—M.] 

Cod. Sin. **0t καὶ προσκόπτ.--Μ.]} 

λαὸς εἰς meptroinagcv=a people for acquisition; of purchasing, Wiclif; of purchase, Reims; acqut- 
sitionis, Vulgate.—M.] 

6 éfayyeiAnre—publish, literally, tell out; Alford—M.] 

1 τὰς apetas—the virtues, Luther, Vulgate; the perfection, Kistemaker.—M.] 
18 εἰ ς---ἴο, unto, rather than into, German.—M.] 

19 @avumaorov—wonderful, German.—M.] 

Verse 10. [2° No people, German.—M.] 

21, 22 Uncompassionated—compassionated, Alford.—o ὑ x marks contrariety, unpitied and pitied.—M.] 


Verse 6. 


Verse 9. μὲ 


this account Peter entreats them to long for that 
nourishment that thus they might be able to grow 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. : β 
and to overcome temptations.—The construction 


Ver. 1. Wherefore, laying aside.—The 
section y. 1.—v. 10. is connected, as are the ex- 
hortations in ch. i. 22, with the idea of regene- 
ration and the love out of a pure heart flowing 
from it. To brotherly love out of a pure heart 
are opposed guile, deception, hypocrisy, envy 
and slander; if that is to spring up, these vices 
must die. On tnis account Peter exhorts Chris- 
tians to lay them aside, to put them off. If a 
new life is implanted, it must grow, and therefore 
have corresponding, wholesome nourishment; on 


is here as in ch. i. 22. The Imperative reacts 
on the Participle. Laying aside isa figure taken 
from clothing and of frequent occurrence, Col. 
iii. 8; Eph. iv. 22; Jas. i. 21. The old man is 
a garment, wholly surrounding, closely-fitting and 
forming a whole with us. ‘Take away the filthy 
garments from him—set a fair mitre upon his 
head,” was the direction concerning Joshua the 
high priest, Zech. iii. 8. The angel adding, 
‘Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass 
from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of 


CHAPTER II. 1-10. 


raiment.” The figures of laying aside and putting 
on clothes was peculiarly apposite because the 
early Christians were wont to lay aside their old 
garments and to exchange them for white and 
clean apparel when they were baptized and re- 
generated. It is necessary to observe that the 
exhortation to laying aside is only addressed to 
those who had the new man, while the unbeliev- 
ing and unregenerate had first to receive another 
mind [μετάνοια, after-thought, after-wisdom, a 
change of disposition must precede baptism and 
new-birth.—M.]. The vices to be laid aside bear 
upon the relation to our neighbour and exert a 
deadly influence on brotherly love. κακία [nocendi 
cupiditas| denotes here, in particular, malicious 
disposition toward others, aiming at their hurt, 
injury and pain, and assuming various manifesta- 
tions, cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 5. The accomplishment of 
such evil intent necessitates lying, cunning and 
other artifices; its concealment requires hypoc- 
risy and dissembling. The sense of dependence 
on those before whom dissimulation is practised, 
the sight of their happiness, the shame felt in 
the conscience in the presence of the virtuous— 
excite envy, and envy engenders all manner of evil, 
detracting and injurious speaking. [ Malitia malo 
delectatur alieno; invidia bono cruciatur alieno ; do- 
lus duplicat cor; adulatio duplicat linguam; detrac- 
tatiovulnerat famam.—Augustine.—M.]. ‘Thus,’ 
observed Flacius, ‘one vice ever genders another.’ 
Huss says of κακαλαλιά that it takes place in va- 
rious, ways, either by denying or darkening a 
neighbour’s virtues, and either by attributing to 
him evil or imputing to him evil designs in doing 
good. 

Ver. 2. As newborn babes.—This goes 
back to ch. i. 23. The connection is similar to 
ch. i. 14. They had been addressed as children 
of obedience, now their young and tender state 
is mentioned as a reason why they should seek 
strength in the word of God. ‘Newborn babes’ 
was a current expression among the Jews for 
proselytes and neophytes. As the desire and 
need of nourishment predominate in the former, 
so they ought to predominate in babes in Christ. 
The expression so far from being derogatory, sets 
forth the tenderness of their relation to God, 
and implies the idea of guilelessness, cf. Is. 
x 11: ks xvi) 15. ete: 

Long for—word.—ézirofetv denotes intense 
and ever recurring desire. While the regenerate 
experience a longing after the word of God, by 
which they had been begotten, similar to the de- 
sire of newborn babes for their mother’s milk, 
Ps, cxix, 81|: 72; exix, 1 still the heredi- 
tary sin which yet cleaves to them renders it ne- 
cessary that they should be constantly urged tothe 
diligent use of the divine word in order to par- 
take of it.—Milk, in opposition to solid food, 1 
Cor. iii. 2; Heb. v. 12; vi. 1, signifies the rudi- 
ments of Christian doctrine, not only its simple 
representation adapted to the capacity of the 
weak but also the more easily intelligible articles 
of Christianity. In this place, however, where 
no such antithesis exists, the figure comprises the 
sum-total of Christianity, the whole Gospel. 
Milk is the first, most simple, most refreshing, 
most wholesome food, especially for children; so 
is the word of God, cf. Is. lv. 1. The most ad- 
vanced Christians ought to consider themselves 


81 


children, in respect of what they are to be here- 
after. <‘‘Christ, the crucified, is milk for babes, 
food for the advanced.” Augustine. Clement of 
Alexandria suggests the partaking of the incarnate 
Logos.—hoyikév is best explained by the Apostle’s 
peculiarity to elucidate his figures by additional 
illustrations, cf. ch. 1. 18. 28. It is milk 
contained in and flowing from the word, spiritual 
milk, which, as Luther explains, is drawn with 
thesoul. Therendering ‘reasonable’ isagainst the 
usus loquendi of the New Testament, and equally 
inadmissible in Rom. xii. 1. [Alford renders 
‘spiritual’ after Allioli and Kistemaker.—M. ] 
The nature of this milk is further defined by 
ἄδολον, which means unadulterated, pure, cf. 2 
Cor. iv. 2; ii. 17. [ἄδολον seems rather to be in 
contrast with δόλον in v. 1.—M.] It is conse- 
quently doctrine that is not compounded with 
human wisdom and thus rendered inefficacious. 
For the word of God has the property that it 
exerts purifying, liberating, illuminating and 
consoling influences only in its purity and entire- 
ness. Irenzus says of the heretics: ‘They 
mix gypsum with the milk, they taint the heavenly 
doctrine with the poison of their errors.” 

ἐν αὐτῷ, receiving it into your innermost soul, 
making it your full property. Growth in holiness 
depends on the constant assimilation of the word. 
“The mother who gaye them birth, nourishes 
them also.’”’—Harless. 

Ver. 3. If, otherwise ye have tasted.— 
A conditional statement is often by emphasis ac- 
cepted as real. Grotius renders the sense well; 
“1 know that you will this, as surely as you—cf. 
Rom. viii. 9; 2 Thes. i. 6.” This form of speech 
contains also an invitation to self-examination. 
Caloy perceives a connection with ver. 1. ‘The 
more you eradicate the bitter root of malice, the 
more also do you taste the sweetness of the good- 
ness of the Lord.” Cf. Song of Sol. ii. 8: v. 18; 
Sir, xxili. 27. The expression, to taste with re- 
ference to the figure of milk, and with full allu- 
sion to Ps. xxxiv. 9, denotes experience of the 
essential virtue of a thing as perceived by the 
sense of taste. It is transferred very properly 
to the experiences of the soul which enters into 
and unites with the object in order to know it in 
all its bearings. Cf. Heb. vi. 5; ii. 9. [Alford 
says, ‘‘The infant once put to the breast desires 
it again.’’—M. 

[Wordsworth quotes the words of Augustine 
(Serm. 353), addressed to the newly baptized: 
‘“These words are specially applicable to you, 
who are yet fresh in the infancy of spiritual re- 
generation. For to you mainly the Divine Ora- 
cles speak, by the Apostle St. Peter, Having 
laid aside all malice, and all guile, as new- 
born infants desire ye the ‘‘rationabile et in- 
nocens lac, ut in illo crescatis ad salutem,” if ye have 
tasted that the Lord is gracious (dulcis.) And we 
are witnesses that ye have tasted it... . Che- 
rish, therefore, this spiritual infancy. The in- 
fancy of the strong is humility. The manhood 
of the weak is pride.” —M. 

That the deed is good.—[ Friendly, Germ. ] 
χρηστός applied to tender, pleasant-tasting solids 
and liquids, to the sweet flavour of old wine, 
Luke y. 89; then to persons, kindly, friendly, 
condescending, Eph. iv. 82; Luke vi. 35. Ὁ κύριος 
is the Lord Jesus, ver. 4, who invites us to Him- 


82 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


-_—— oo SSSSsSSsSsSsSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsSSS 


self and commends to us the ease of His yoke, 
Matt. xi. 29. He is here represented as the 
spiritual means of nourishment, the partaking 
whereof promotes the new life of Christians, and 
draws them to the word, which is His revelation, 
and in a certain sense identical with Him. “This 
is tasting indeed,” says Luther, ‘to believe from 
the heart that Christ has given Himself to me and 
has become my own, that my misery is His, and 
His life mine. Feeling this from the heart, is 
tasting Christ.” [The Lord, ‘quod subjicitur ; 
ad quem accedentes, non simpliciter ad Deum refertur, 
sed ipsum designat qualis patefactus est in persona 
Christi.” —Calvin. } 

Ver. 4. To whom approaching.—The Im- 
perative construction is best adapted to what fol- 
lows, as it supplies an appropriate progress in 
the deyelopment of the thought. We had before: 
“Take nourishment from the word of God, and 
from the communion of Christ; this is followed 
by an exhortation contemplating the gathering 
of a congregation of God, to wit: Build up your- 
selves, as living stones, into a temple of God. 
Ever-renewed approaching Christ is the means 
and condition of building. The Apostle thinks 
of passages like the following, Ps. cxviii. 22, 23; 
Is. viii. 14; xxviii. 16; Luke ii. 84: Matt. xxi. 
42; cf. Matt. xi. 29; Jno. vi. 37. In the Old Tes- 
tament, the priests are those who approach and 
draw near to God, Lev. xvi. 1; Ezek. xl. 46; 
Numb. ix. 13; in the New Testament access to 
God is opened to all through Christ, cf. Heb. ix. 
1, etc.; vil. 25; x. 22; xi. 6; iv. 16. Wedraw near 
to Christ by prayer—(considering His person, 
His merit and His office)—by entering into His 
Word and drawing therefrom grace for grace by 
faith. Ἶ 

Unto a living stone.—The Apostle being 
about to speak of the sacred edifice of the New 
Testament, felt of course anxious to designate 
Christ as the corner-stone thereof. By the glory 
of the corner-stone, he desires to impress us with 
the glory of the edifice to be reared thereon. 
(Weiss). We do not decide upon the suggestion 
of Gerhard that Peter alludes to his own name. 
_ [Petrus a petra Christo sic denominatus metaphora, 
petre delectatur, ac suo exemplo docet omnes debere 
esse petros, h. 6., vivos lapides supra Christum fide 
edificatos. Gerhard.—M.] Cf. Acts iv. 11; Rom. 
xi. 11; Eph. ii. 20; 1 Cor. x. 4; Zech. iii. 9. He 
is a stone or a rock, because after the manner of 
rocks, He remains ever the same, unchangeably 
powerful and inyincible; because His word is 
firm and immoyable, and because God has or- 
dained and designed Him to be the foundation of 
His spiritual temple. But why a living stone? 
This predicate reminds us of the predicates Peter 
is wont to join to other images, vy. 2. 5; i. 13; it 
denotes not only a spiritual stone, but alludes to 
the circumstance that His rocky firmness is to 
His followers not hardness, but’ absolute relia- 
bility, truth and faithfulness, that in Him there 
is nothing of rigidity and death but absolute light 
and life. Calov.—‘‘ He is alive and makes alive.” 
Jno. v. 28; vi. 48; xiv. 19, οἷο. ; iv. 10; Acts ii. 
28. He penetrates and fills with His life the 
whole organism of believers, and causes it to 
grow. ‘Peter here tenders us the most urgent 
invitation to draw near to Christ, for those to 


whom Christ is as yet a mummy, cannot feel them- 
selves drawn to Him.” Steiger. 

Disallowed indeed of men, but - - pre- 
cious.—arodoxiudlerv—to reject on proof or trial, 
like useless coin, to reject for want of proper 


qualification. Heb. OND . He was rejected not 


only by the builders, but by men of every kind, 
of every occupation, of every age and generation, 
by Jews and Gentiles. Hence the expression is 
quite general, rejected of men, of the whole world 
of unbelievers. Opposed to this human judgment, 
proceeding from enmity to whatever is Divine and 
depending solely on externals, is the alone deci- 
sive judgment of God. Before God, in His eyes, 
and according to His decree He is chosen out and 
acknowledged precious and excellent before many 
millions, (antithesis between ἐκλεκτόν and ἀπο- 
δεδοκιμασμένον) and had in great honour. Cf. 1 
Tim. v. 21; Luke ix. 835; Rom. xvi. 18. Every- 
thing met in Him the exact fulfilment of what 
prophecy had foretold concerning Him, and God 
made even His resurrection the means of esta- 
blishing His Messianic character. Peter alludes 
to Is. xxviii. 16, and laying stress on His pre- 
ciousness with God, omits several of the predi- 
cates used in that passage. His rejection, there- 
fore, so far from being matter of reproach, is one 
of the chief signs by which Jesus may be known 
as the true Messiah. 

Ver. 5. Be yealso built up, ete. οἰκοδομεῖσθε 
cf. Jude 20, to be taken as a Middle in a reflexive 
sense. Christ being so excellent a corner-stone, 
on which rests the entire spiritual temple of God, 
be ye also inserted therein. Such being built up 
is something very different from a few ephemeral 
or passing flights of emotion; it starts from a 
solid foundation, includes continued and sys- 
tematic activity, and demands in particular that 
every one, even he who is firmly and closely in- 
serted in Jesus, should suffer himself to be put in 
that place and there to be inserted as a member 
of the whole, which the will of the great Architect 
assigns to him. As living stones, forasmuch 
as you are living stones and in the regeneration, 
ch. i. 8; ii, 2; have put on spiritual life emanat- 
ing from Christ, cf. Jno. v. 26; xi. 25; x. 28; xiv. 
19. Calov specifies the following points of com- 
parison: (a) the building upon the foundation- 
stone. ‘The stones of the building cannot stand 
without the foundation-stone. We do not carry 
Him, but He carries us. If we stand and rely 
upon Him, we must also abide where He is.” 
Luther. (4) The hardness and firmness in order 
to resist all assaults of enemies and all storms. 
Bernard, Serm. 60, on the Song of Sol., says: 
“Raised on the Rock, I stand secure from the ene- 
my and all calamities; the world shakes, the body 
oppresses me, the devil pursues me; but I do not 
fall, for 1am founded on a firm rock.” (4) The 
working, grinding, polishing and fitting of the 
stones. (d) The joining together with particular 
reference to the tie of love. (6) The mutual sup- 
porting. The lower stone-supports the upper, 
this again the lower and the side stone, as Gre- 
gory says in /Tom. on Ezek. : **In the Holy Church 
each supports the other, and each is supported 
by the other.” Cf. the vision of the building of 
the Church triumphant in Herm Pastor, vis. 8. 


CHAP. II. 1-10. 


83 


A spiritual house, not apposition, but effect 
and end of the building. Grotius rightly ob- 
serves: In the spiritual building, individual 
believers are both living stones with reference to 
the whole temple of the Church, and a spiritual 
house or a temple of God, but this is inapplicable 
to this passage, which evidently treats of the 
founding of a people of God, (v. 9). As a house 
is a whole, consisting of different parts, so is the 
Church of God; as one master rules in a house, 
so the Triune Jehovah rules in His temple; cf. 
Eph. ii. 22; 1 Cor. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16. Among 
believers each is not to aim at separating himself 
into a house by himself; they should be united in 
the commonwealth of God, and together should 
constitute a spiritual temple. It is called spirit- 
ual in opposition to the material temple, made 
with hands, and also because it is wrought and 
occupied by the Spirit. 

For a holy priesthood, (Lachmann after 
Codd. A. B. C. reads εἰς igparevua,—the end of 
building,) a holy community of priests. ‘‘Under 
the Old Covenant, Jehovah had His house and 
His priests, who served Him in His house; the 
Church fulfils both purposes under the New, be- 
ing both His house and His holy priesthood.” 
Wiesinger. The expression alludes to Ex. xix. 
6.—2 Chron. xxix. 11. ‘‘The Lord hath chosen 
you: to stand before Him, to serye Him, and that 
ye should minister unto Him and burn incense.”’ 
This applies to all Christians. All believers of 
the New Testament are anointed priests by the 
Holy Ghost. The priesthood is called ἄγεον, be- 
cause they are consecrated to God, cleansed by 
the blood of Christ: and studious of a holy con- 
versation. Their activity consists in offering 
spiritual sacrifices. 

To offer up spiritual sacrifices, etc., ’Ava- 
φέρειν to carry up to the altar; cf. ν. 24; Heb. vii. 
27; xili. 15; Jas. 11. 21, elsewhere προσφέρειν, to 
take to God, Heb. v. 7. These sacrifices are spi- 
ritual, in opposition to the animal sacrifices of the 
Old Testament, and correspond to the Being of 
God, who is a Spirit, and to the spiritual house 
in which they are offered; they are wrought by 
the Spirit of God, and must be spiritually offered. 
This spiritual sacrifice necessitates voluntary sur- 
render to the service of God, and approaching 
Him spiritually; and consists above all things in 
that believers should, according to Rom. xii. 1, 
present to the service of their God and Saviour, 
their bodies with all its members and powers, 
eyes and ears, mouth and tongue, hands and feet, 
and themselves, with all they have and are, and 
that not only once at their first conversion, but 
daily, Luke ix.23. Again, as the burning of in- 
cense was connected with the sacrifices of the 
Old Testament, so the incense of prayer, Rev. viii. 
3. 4, and especially the lip-sacrifice of praise, 
Heb. xiii. 15; Ps. 1. 14, are integral parts of the 
sacrifices of the New Testament. They moreover 
include the sacrifices of love and charity; if 
Christians gladly communicate their temporal 
possessions, seek their neighbours’ good at the 
loss of personal advantage, and are prepared to 
give their life for the brethren, 1 Jno. iii. 16; 
Heb. xiii. 16; Phil. iv. 18. But since these sac- 
rifices are always imperfect and affected by mani- 
fold infirmities, they cannot be acceptable to God 
unless offered through Him in whom God is per- 


fectly pleased. Hence the annexed sentence, 
εὐπροσδέκτους, Θεῷ διὰ, which last word is not to 
be joined with avevéyxa, but with εὐπροσδέκτους 
in the sense of taking through, through the me- 
diation of Christ, that is, through His goodness, 
power, advocacy and merits, cf. Eph. i. 6. [But, 
on the other hand, joining διὰ «.7.A. with ἀνενέγκα 
is supported by the analogy of Heb. xiii. 15; and 
preferred by Grotius, Aret., de Wette, Huther, 
Wiesinger and Alford, who consider the former 
construction inadequate to the weighty character 
of the words, and would seem to put them in the 
wrong place, seeing that not merely the accept- 
ability, but the very existence and possibility of 
offering of those sacrifices, depends on the me- 
diation of the great High Priest.—M. ] 


Ver. 6. Because also it is contained in 
Scripture.—The Apostle again returns to the 
figure of the living stone, and supports it by a 
free and somewhat abbreviated quotation from 
Is. xxviii. 10.--περιέχει for περιέχεται as some 
verbs are used both in a reflexive and a passive 
sense. Winer, p. 267, 2d Eng. edition. Steiger 
adduces a passage from Josephus. 

ἀκρογωνιαῖος λίθον, a corner-stone of the founda- 
tion which unites two walls. Similarly Christ 
also is the connecting link of the Old and New 
Testaments, of Jews and Gentiles; ἐκλεκτόν see 0. 
4. In the prophetical passage, the primary re- 
ference appears to be to a king of the house of 
David, but the Spirit points to the Messiah, ac- 
cording to the all but unanimous opinion of an- 
cient commentators; the New Testament also 
renders that opinion necessary. Is. vili. 14, de- 
scribes Jehovah Himself as a stone of stumbling 
to those who do not let Him be their fear; and at 
Matt. xxi. 42, our Lord applies to Himself the 
words of Ps. exviil. 22. ἐκλεκτόν, ἔντιμον is re- 
peated by the Apostle in order to show how pre- 
cious and valuable this corner-stone is to him. 


ὁ πιστεύων ; the idea of confiding predominates 
here; hence the preposition ἐπί instead of εἰς or 


ἐν, In Hebrew PONT to build on something, 


to stand fast. The passage Is. xxviii. 16, reads, 
‘he that believeth shall not make haste,” (1. e., fly 
like a coward who throws away his arms.) Peter 
expresses a more general sense, he shall not be 
ashamed; his hopes shall not make him ashamed. 
“‘The precious corner-stone assures an eternal 
state of grace and salvation.” Roos. It was laid 
at the incarnation, and especially at the resur- 
rection of Jesus. 


Ver. 7. To you then, who believe, is the 
honour, etc.—The sense of ἡ τιμῇ is determined 
by the antithesis to the preceding καταισχυνθῇ, 
and at the same time refers back to ἔντιμος, 
while the part of unbelievers is nothing but shame, 
faith is to you honour and glory, cf. ch. i. 7; ii. 9. 
This dignity is farther enlarged upon aty. 9; but 
the relation of unbelievers to Christ has first to 
be discussed. 

ἀπειθεῖν relates as much to promises and facts 
as to precepts, cf. Heb. iii. 18. 19; iv. 2. 3. 6; 
Jno. iii. 86; Acts xiv. 2; xvii. 5; Rom. ii. 8; x. 
21; xi. 80; the contrast in this place gives pro- 
minence to the former relation. 

λίθον, literally taken from the LXX. version of 
Ps. cxvili. 22. Here also λίθος is in the Accusa- 


34 THE FIRST EPISTLE 


tive. This case may have been retained with re- 
ference to τίθημι in y. 6. (Lachmann reads λίθος.) 

οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, the chiefs, the dignitaries of the 
Jewish state are the builders, who tear up the 
foundation. ‘‘Whenever we see the dignitaries 
rise against Christ, we will call to mind the pre- 
diction of David, that the stone is rejected by the 
builders.’”’ Calvin, cf. Rom. xi. 8; 1 Thess. ii. 15. 
16; 1 Cor. i. 23.—otroc, emphatically just this 
one and no other. 

εἰς expresses the destination and development 
towards the foundation-stone. Since His resur- 
rection, He stands as the rock supporting His 
Church, but as a stone of stumbling and rock of 
offence to unbelievers, according to Is. viii. 14. 

Ver. 8 A stone of stumbling —who 
stumble.—zpéckouua, a collision producing hurt 


or injury, Ad .—oxdvdadov, properly the catch 
: property 


in the trap, holding the bait, then the trap itself; 
figuratively, whatever causes to fall, seduces and 
involyes men in sin and calamity. The running 
and stumbling against a thing is followed by fall- 
ing. Ruin as the consequence of unbelief stands 
in contrast with the honour in store for believers, 
ef. Luke ii. 84: xx. 17; Matt. xxi. 42-44; Rom. 
ix. 82. The meaning is more than mere subjec- 
tive taking offence and being vexed, as the sequel 
shows, not—da7eHeiv.—ol προσκόπτουσιν, relates to 
ἀπειθοῦντες, who stumble while and because they 
do not believe the word.—zeockérrovew must not 
be joined with Ady, for it has already its object— 
t.e., Christ. Grotius erroneously confines him- 
self to the temporal punishment of the Jews, 
whereas the reference is plain to whatever misery 
and ruin follows the rejection of Christ. 
Whereunto they were also appointed.— 
εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν relates to the foregoing principal 
verb, to προσκόπτειν. Grotius rightly: ‘* Unbeliey- 
ers are appointed for this very thing that they 
stumble, endure the most grievous punishment 
for their unbelief.” 7ifju applied to the tem- 
poral acts of God, not to His eternal decrees and 
ordinances, cf. Jno. xv. 16; Acts xx. 28; 1 Tim. 
ni. 7; 2 Tim. i. 11; 2 Pet... 6; Ps. levi. 9 in 
LXX.; 1 Thess. y. 9. It denotes placing, setting 
in a definite situation, in certain circumstances, 
which often carry great dangers along with great 
disadvantages. Roos observes: ‘Had those un- 
believers died in infancy, or had they been born 
deaf, or among ignorant heathen, they could not 
thus stumble. Had Caiaphas, Judas Iscariot and 
others been born several centuries sooner, they 
could not have so wofully sinned against the Son 
of God. Man is not wronged in being thus set 
among inestimable benefits and awful dangers; 
he is only to seize the benefits, to believe the 
word; if he is unwilling to do so, his condemna- 
tion is perfectly just.’’ Having once voluntarily 
surrendered themselves to unbelief, their stumb- 
ling is neither accidental nor optional, bat it con- 
tains besides the natural connection also a Divine 
and inevitable arrangement: ‘* He that soweth to 
his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption,” Gal. 
vi. 8. Yea, God punishes sin with sin, unbelief 
with unbelief, if men wantonly repel grace and 
love darkness more than: light. With this ex- 
planation we reject the expositions of the Calyin- 
ists, δ. g., that of Aretius; ‘‘Satan and their na- 
tive evil have set them not to believe,’ and that 


GENERAL OF PETER. 


of Beza: ‘‘ That some are rejected not because of 
their foreseen sins, but because of the good plea- 
sure of the Divine will.”’ Cf. on the other hand, 
Rom. x. 11-18; xvi. 26; 1 Tim. ii. 4; Tit. ii, 11. 
The artificial exposition of Cornelius a Lapide is 
equally inadmissible, ‘* They also were set ( posit) 
to believe in Christ, but they refuse faith, just 
because they will not believe.” The parallelism, 
already noticed by Gerhard, ought not to be 
passed over, that God sets (appoints) Christ as 
the foundation and corner-stone of the τιμή for 
believers; while unbelievers are set (appointed) 
to stumble at this corner-stone, which is to them 
a stone of stumbling, vide Weiss. 


Ver. 9. But ye are - - a people for ac- 
quisition.—With reference to vy. 5, the Apostle 
describes the glory of the Christian state as con- 
trasted with the lot of unbelievers, both because 
of their guilt and in accordance with the Divine 
appointment. The first and last of the predicates 
used are taken from Is. xliii. 20, in LXX.; the 
others refer to Ex. xix. 6. γένος, denotes a whole 
united by natural relationship, community of 
origin among several parts of a people. Applied 
to the Christian Church, it signifies the totality 
of those begotten of the same incorruptible seed, 
and having one Spiritual Father, ch. i. 3.23; 1 
Jno. v. 1. 

ἐκλεκτόν, similar to the Jewish Church of the 
posterity of Abraham and Jacob, the Christian 
Church is a company chosen out of the great 
mass of humanity, destined to salvation and glory 
and resting on a foundation stone which is also 
ἐκλεκτός, v. 4. They constitute a royal priesthood 
just because they belong tothe one family of the 
children of the great God. The Hebrew has ‘‘a 
kingdom of priests,’ wherein God the King go- 
verns and animates all things. The priestly 
character is, however, the leading idea. You 
all may freely draw near to God, sacrificing, 
praying, and blessing, οἵ. Rev. i. 6; v.10. But 
because you have community of life with Him, 
and should be the image of Him who rules at 
the right hand of the Majesty, ch. iii. 22, you 
enjoy in Him also the prerogatives of royalty 
and government. Even now you must no longer 
serve the world, with Christ you may overcome 
the flesh, the world and the deyil; your position 
as rulers will hereafter become more manifest to 
yourselves and to the world. In you shall be 
completely fulfilled what in the faithful of Israel 
could be realized only in feeble beginnings. Cf. 
Is. lxi. 6; Ps. exlviii. 14, Grotius quotes the 
saying of Cicero that it is a royal thing to be the 
servant of no passion. 

ἔθνος ἅγιον. ΑΒ Israel was, among the many 
nations of the world, separated and consecrated 
to God, Ex. xix. 6; Deut. vii. 6, so are you ina 
much higher sense a holy congregation in the 
midst of this sin-stained world, you are cleansed 
by the blood of Christ, sanctified by the Spirit 
of God, ch. 1. 2, and bidden to strive indefatiga- 
bly for holiness by renouncing the world and 
growing in brotherly love, ch. i. 22. 


Rade εἰς περιποίησιν-ε: MAD DY, a people ac- 


quired for possession, is the last title of honour, 
Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6; Mal. iii. 17. Tit. ii. 
14; Is. xliii, 21. ὧν may be understood. λαός 


CHAPTER II. 1-10. 35 


as exposed to ἔθνος may be designed to give prom- 
inence to the ideas of subordination to the King 
and of classification according to office and sta- 
tion, while ἔθνος suggests the idea of external 
relations and national habits. Some take περιποί- 
now actively for acquiring, as in 1 Thess. νυ. 9; 
2 Thess. ii. 14; Heb. x. 39, in the sense of the 
people destined, to acquire the glorious inheri- 
tance of God; but the reference to the Old Testa- 
ment and the absence of an object in the passage 
under notice, which elsewhere uniformly accompa- 
nies it, forbids such an interpretation. As God 
had acquired the people of Israel by taking them 
from the Egyptian house of bondage, so He has ac- 
quired the Church of the New Testament by the 
blood of his Son.—Following Is. xliii. 20, the 
Apostle next specifies the end for which God did 
choose them as His own and accord to them such 
high immunities, not that they should seek therein 
their own glory, but that they should glorify God. 
Cf. Matt. v. 16. The construction is similar to 
that of "ἀνενέγκαι in v. 55 

That ye should publish, ete.—éayyetAnre= 
to publish forth, to tell out, to give wide-spread 
publicity to what takes place within, ef. Tit. ii. 
14; Eph. ii. 10. This must take place by word 
and deed, not only by called teachers but by the 
entire community of believers. 

The virtues.—<apery, although of frequent use 
in the writings of the Greek philosophers, occurs 
in the New Testament, besides this passage, only 
in Phil. iv. 8; 2 Pet. i. 8, 5. The word used in 
the, parallel passage of the Old Testament is 


POTN, my praise, cf. Is. xlviii. 8.12 in LXX. 


The ἀρεταί of God are, as Gerhard rightly ex- 
plains, those attributes of God which shine forth 
from the work of our free calling and the whole 
contrivance of our salvation. The connection 
Suggests more particularly His Omnipotence 
which removes every obstacle, and His mercy 
which condescends to the most degraded slave of 
sin. The last attribute, in particular, was ex- 
pressed in the appearing of Christ. Believing 
congregations should be both the trumpets and 
mirrors thereof. 

καλεῖν, elsewhere applied to the call of the 
Apostolate, Matt. iv. 21; Mk. i. 19; Rom. i. 1; 
Gal. i. 15; 1 Cor. i. 1; then to invitations to en- 
ter into the kingdom of God, Lke. v. 32; 1 Cor. 
i. 95 Rev. xix.-9; Mtt. xxii. 14; ix. 13; Lke. 
xiv. 24; v. 82; Rom. viii. 80; ix. 12. 24; 1 Cor. 
i. 7; 1 Thess. iv. 7; v. 24; 2 Thess. ii. 14; that 
is, the kingdom of grace and glory. 1 Thess. ii. 
12; 1 Tim. vi. 12; Heb. ix. 16; 1 Pet. v. 10. 
This invitation is mostly effected by the preaching 
of the Gospel, but sometimes also by God ad- 
dressing men personally and calling them by 
their names, Gen. xii. 1; Ex. xxxi. 2; Is. xiii. 
3; Acts ix. 4, and by the efficient working of 
His Spirit in their hearts. God the Father, the 
God of all grace is here, as elsewhere, He who 
calls, 1 Cor. i.9; Gal. i. 15; 1 Pet. v.10. He 
thus realizes in time (in this present life) the ante- 
temporal (the eternal) act of election. 

The darkness is, according to Flacius, the king- 
dom of darkness and that most sad condition 
which belongs to all men before they come to 
Christ. It comprises both ignorance of God and 
the greatest unrighteousness, the slavery of 


es 


Satan, and lastly, all kinds of punishment, the 
curse and wrath of God, and, we may add, the 
anxious unrest and torment of conscience. This 
figure being applied to the Jews in the Old Testa- 
ment, Ps. cvii. 10; Is. ix. 2, affords no clue, 
that Peter was addressing former pagans. Op- 
posed to darkness is the wonderful light of God, 
who Himself is Light as to His Being. It translates 
believers into His holy and blessed communion 
of light; their understanding is therein enlight- 
ened, their will sanctified and their conscience 
filled with peace. It is a wonderful Light as to 
origin, nature and effect, since it makes of sinners 
the children of God. «It discovers wonderful 
things and cannot be seen by the worldly-minded.” 
Roos. ‘It is wonderful, just as to one coming 
out of long darkness the light of day would be 
wonderful.” de Wette. 

Ver. 10. Which in time past—but now 
compassionated.—The remembrance of what 
they had once been, must deepen the sense of 
gratitude on the part of the readers of the Epistle. 
Peter cites freely Hos. ii. 23, where, of the people 
in their then condition, it is said that they were 
not the people of God, but that in the days of 
Messiah, God would say unto them, “Thou art 
my people.” The passage in Hosea manifestly 
refers to Israel. The prophecy met its fulfilment 
whenever a Jewish congregation joined Christi- 
anity. If the meaning were the substitution of 
a new Christian people, a people either composed 
of Jews and Gentiles, or mainly and by way of 
preference of Gentiles—for the people of Israel 
—those promises would either still remain un- 
fulfilled, or be fulfilled in a way that needed, 
after the manner of Paul, to be more clearly de- 
fined and substantiated. Ov λαός not only πα 
people of God but the very opposite. ’EAentév 
rec. ‘*The Aorist denotes the historical fact, 
the act of Divine compassion to have really taken 
place.” Steiger.—ovx ἠλεημένοι, a long time be- 
fore they had, under the Divine judgments, been 
given over to sin and its fruit of corruption. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. It would be erroneous to represent the na- 
ture of regeneration as a state out of which 
whatever is good is spontaneously flowing, as 
water flows from a strong fountain; the new man 
needs constant growth in all his powers. The 
light of his knowledge must deepen and increase; 
his will must become more firm and decided; he 
must grow in love, hope, patience and all other 
virtues, Heb. vi. 1; Eph. iv. 15; 1 Thes. iv. Ὶς 
10; Phil. iii. 12, This necessitates exhortation 
on the part of others, and the regenerate must 
(of course in the spirit of the Gospel, for the 
flesh is ever warring against the spirit) coerce 
himself to do good. ‘A Christian is in process 
of being, not already completed. Consequently, 
a Christian is not a Christian, that is, one who 
thinks that he is already a Christian, whereas he 
is to become one, is nothing. For we strive to 
get to heaven, but are not yet in heaven.” Luther. 

2. Christianity is not satisfied with partial and 
superficial improvements; it demands inflexible 
severity toward the old man, and insists upon it 
that impurity in every shape and form shall be 


86 THE FIRST EPISTLE 


exposed and struggled with, v. 1.—The progress 
of the Christian life corresponds every way to 
its beginning. He that in a first repentance has 
been awakened from spiritual sleep, must every 
day rise anew from sleep; he that has put on 
Christ in faith, must daily put Him on more 
thoroughly. This is necessary because the old 
man exists alongside the new, although the do- 
minion of the former be broken. 

8. The means whereby the new man is nour- 
ished and furthered is none other than that to 
which he owes his existence. He must grow out of 
(éx) God, His spirit, and His word. It is a most 
dangerous opinion for any to hold that he has in- 
wardly appropriated so much of the Divine word 
as to be able to dispense with the outward word. 
He that despises this may soon be punished by 
God, in that He will so effectually deprive him of 
His light and strength as to induce him to regard 
as Divine revelations his own vain imaginings 
and foolish dreams.—Wiesinger says: ‘The 
Christian may measure his love of God by his 
love of the word of God; it is his personal expe- 
rience of the love of God that draws him to the 
word, and what he seeks is an ever-increasing, 
ever-deepening experience of the χρηστότης of 
the Lord. Inquiry led by such an impulse of 
personal communion with the Lord contains with- 
in itself its own rule and corrective, a power 
which gathers together into one centre of life all 
the varying phases of the Scriptures, and guards 
them from being shattered and alienated.” 

4. A spiritual house, a temple, must also have 
a priestly people, v. 4. The priestly consecration 


of the New Testament consists in that we seize 


by the self-surrender of true faith the true sin- 
offering and atonement made on Golgotha, and 
offered and presented to us in the means of grace. 
First comes the sin-offering, then the burnt-offer- 
ing, then the thank-offering; hence none can 
live in the service and to the praise of God un- 
less he first have seized, by the true burnt-offer- 
ing of faith, the true sin-offering of Christ, and 
unless his whole life become (working outwardly 
from within) one whole thank-offering, one whole 
and undivided act of worship. The real burnt- 
offering is thenceforth repentance and faith, 
wherein man dies daily with the right sin-offer- 
ing of Christ, and daily revives, and suffers him- 
self and his whole life to be possessed of God, by 
being refined, purified and consumed in the fire 
of the Holy Ghost.” Kliefoth. The general 
priesthood of Christians applies only to convert- 
ed, believing and living Christians, and implies 
that there is no class or state of Christians priv- 
ileged with exclusive mediation of salvation. Lu- 
ther has powerfully brought out this doctrine in 
connection with justification,.and Spener pro- 
pounded itanew. But God has likewise instituted 
for the church. an office for the administration of 
the means of grace, a clearly defined service to 
be committed to certain persons, which is evident 
from 2 Cor. iii. 11; Eph. iv. 11; 1 Cor. xii. 28; 
Matt. xxviii. 19. 20; Jas. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xiv. 5. 

“6. The Divine pleasure rests on the spiritual 
sacrifices of the priests of the New Testament, 
only for the sake of Christ; where this truth is 
sincerely held, neither self-righteousness, nor 


despondency, its twin sister, can maintain their | 


ground, 


GENERAL OF PETER. 


6. The nature of Christ reflects itself in be- 
lievyers. They are, v. 5, stones, temples, priests. 
Every stone is, as it were, a temple by itself; 
many houses of God constitute the One Church 
of Christ. 

7. Holy Scripture is silent concerning the pre- 
destination of individuals to unbelief, sin and 
damnation, although it teaches that God has (tem- 
porally) concluded all in unbelief, that he might 
have mercy upon all, Rom. xi. 32. 

8. With the Reformers, we should draw the 
true idea of the Christian Church from vy. 9, al- 
though it applies only to a small fraction of the 
degenerate Christendom of the present. The 
ungodly are only in appearance and name, not in 
truth and in deed, members of the Church. 

9. We learn from y. 9 that there is no antithe- 
sis between the New Testament and the Oli, pro- 
vided the latter be treated according to its kernel 
and substance; Peter comprises both as a unit, 
but at the same time gives uniform prominence 
to the spirituality and intrinsicality of Christian- 
ity, and specifies a spiritual house, spiritual sac- 
rifices and living stones; so that the Old Testa- 
ment is represented by him as the Divinely ap- 
pointed threshold and porch of the New. The 
province of bringing out the contrast between 
the Old Testament and the New was left to St. 
Paul. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Ver. 1. Which are the things that kill broth- 
erly love and ought therefore earnestly to be 
fought against and laid aside ?—Growth in Chris- 
tian perfection: (a) its soil; (4) its necessity; 
(c) its means.—Love of the Divinely given means 
of grace both the mark and task of the new man. 
—The foundation, on which all Christian exhor- 
tations are resting. — The true Church is the 
mother, nourishing her children with the pure 
milk of the Divine word.—Jesus, the sinner’s 
cordial and delight in life, suffering and dying. 
—Christ, the living stone, ever living and ani- 
mating His people.—Christians are living stones 
in the building of the kingdom of God: 1. What 
does it mean? 2 What is necessary to it? 3. 
What advantage does it bring?—The Christian 
state a holy priesthood: 1. Its dignity; 2. 
Its duties.—The two-fold destination of the 
Church’s corner-stone.—Of the vessels of wrath 
set (prepared) for condemnation.—The chosen 
generation of the children of God: 1. Their 
election; 2. Their destination.—Only God’s peo- 
ple is a people indeed. 

Srarke:—The punishment of sin is affected by 
regeneration, for this must supply us with the 
ability to avoid evil.—He that betrays attach- 
ment to some one darling sit’ to which natural 
naughtiness, habit, or manner of life render him 
peculiarly liable, gives proof that he is not yet 
in earnest as to his sanctification.—Sin is an arch- 
deceiver; let every man take care not to be de- 
ceived, and not to regard evil and harmful as 
good and harmless.—The longer and the more we 
partake of the sweet milk of the Gospel, the 
more do we increase in the spirit.—Faith gives 
us some taste of the grace, mercy and loving- 
kindness of God, Ps. xxxiv. 9.—He that tastes 
the goodness of God must show it in loving 


CHAPTER II. 1-10. 


37 


eee 


converse with his neighbour.—Well built on] a spiritual building; having this privilege that 


Christ; who can destroy this temple? Matt. xvi. 
18. In this temple offer diligently the incense 
of your prayer and sacrifice.—Good works are 
well pleasing to God, not because of their per- 
fection, but because of Christ the Beloved, for 
they are wrought in God, Jno. iii. 21.—Consider 
the cause and the order of salvation: Christ is 
the cause, faith the order; both must go together 
or salvation is impossible, Jno. iii. 86.—Those 
who reject Christ lose their life, but do neither 
hurt Him nor His Gospel any more than a well- 
secured corner-stone can be hurt by those who 
stumble at it.—The great glory of believers :— 
they have consolation and joy in life and death.— 
The unconverted are abominable to God, the con- 
verted precious and acceptable. 

Lisco :—Sincere repentance: (a) its nature; (6) 
its motive.—The blessed communion with Christ 
Jesus. —The exalted dignity of the Christian 

‘hurch.—The Christian’s life of faith.—The 
eternally immovable foundation of the kingdom 
of heaven.—Christ stands in a contrasted relation 
toman.—The Apostle’s exhortation that weshould 
build up ourselves. 

LeigHuton:—Vy. 21. 2. The apostle requires 
these two things: 1. The innocency of children; 
2. The appetite of children.—Epicretus says: 
“Every thing hath two handles.” The art of 
taking things by the better side, which charity 
always doth, would save much of those janglings 
and heart-burnings that so abound in the world.— 
There is none comes to the school of Christ, suit- 
ing the philosopher’s word, wt fabula rasa, as 
blank paper to receive His doctrine, but, on the 
contrary, all scribbled and blurred with such 
base habits as these—malice, hypocrisy, envy, 
etc.—These two are necessary conditions of good 
nourishment: 1. That the food be good and 
wholesome; 2. That the inward constitution of 
them that use it be so, too.—Lisdem alimur ex qui- 
bus constamus.—Pure and unmixed, as milk drawn 
immediately from the breast; the pure word of 
God without the mixture, not only of error, but 
of all other composition of vain, unprofitable 
subjects or affected human eloquence, such as 
become not the majesty and gravity of God’s word, 
1 Pet. iv. 11.—* Desire the sincere milk”: 1. It 
should be natural; 2. earnest; 8. constant. 

Ver. 3. The free grace of God was given to be 
tasted in the promises, before the coming of 
Christ in the flesh, but being accomplished in His 
coming, then was the sweetness of grace made 
more sensible; then was it more fully broached 
and let out to the elect world, when He was 
pierced on the cross and His blood poured forth 
for our redemption. Through those holes of his 
wounds may we draw und taste that the Lord is gra- 
cious, says St. Augustin.—‘‘If ye have tasted.” 
There must be, 1, a firm believing the truth of 
the promises wherein the free grace of God is 
expressed and exhibited to us; 2. a particular 
application or attraction of that grace to our- 
selves, which is as the drawing those breasts of 
consolation, Is. Ixvi. 11, namely, the promises 
contained in both Testaments; 38. there is a sense 
of the sweetness of that peace being applied or 
drawn into the soul, and that is properly this 
taste. 

Vv. 4.5. 1. The nature of the building: It is 


it is tota in toto et tota in qualibet parte. The He- 
brew for the word for palace and temple is one. 
2. The materials of it. 8, The structure br way 
of building it.—First coming and then built up. 
—As these stones are built on Christ by faith, so 
they are cemented one to another by love.—‘“A 
holy priesthood”: 1. The office; 2. The service 
of that office; 3. The success of that service.— 
[Apparent paradox: God claims the heart whole 
and yet broken.—M. ] 

Ver. 6. In these words are five things: 1. 
This foundation stone; 2. The laying of it; 3. 
The building on it; 4. The firmness of this 
building; 5. The greatness and excellence of the 
whole work.—What Seneca says of wisdom is 
true of faith: ‘ Puto multos potuisse ad sapientiam 
pervenire, nisi putassent se jam pervenisse.”’ 

Ver. 9. 1. The estate of Christians; 2. Its 
opposition to the state of unbelievers; 9. The end 
of it. ‘Generation’: They are of one nation, 
belonging to the same blessed land of promise, 
all citizens of the new Jerusalem, yea, all child- 
ren of the same family, whereof Jesus Christ, 
the root of Jesse, is the stock, who is the great 
king and the great High-priest, and thus they are a 
royal priesthood.—They resemble in their spirit- 
ual state the Levitical priesthood: 1. In their 
consecration: (a) they were washed, cf. Rev. i. 5; 
(4) The washing was accompanied by sacrifice 
[Christ’s blood was shed in sacrifice]; (c) They 
were anointed [Christians are anointed with the 
gifts of the Spirit]; (4) They were clothed in 
pure garments, Ps. exxxii. 9; (6) They had of- 
ferings put into their hands. 2. In their ser- 
vices: (a) They had charge of the sanctuary 
{Christians have charge of their hearts]; (6) 
They were to bless the people [the prayers of 
Christians convey blessings to the world]. 3. In 
their course of life: [The life of Christians is 
regulated by a code of holy laws.—M. ] 

[Baxrer:—Ver. 2. Alas what a multitude of 
dwarfs has Christ, that are but like infants, though 
they have numbered ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fif- 
ty, or even sixty years of spiritual life.—M. ] 

[Joun Guas:—Ver. 9. ‘‘There is now no more 
any place on earth where the whole Church assem- 
bles for worship; but they all assemble in the 
heavenly Jerusalem, where Jesus is, the antitype of 
that on earth, in which the Church of Israel assem- 
bled, and toward which they worshipped from all 
corners of the land. Here they on earth have 
their conversation, Phil. iii. 20; and unto that 
place the tribes of God go up now worshipping 
God, all serving in newness of the Spirit; and 
there are no worshippers now but spiritual wor- 
shippers. Thus there is an end put to all contro- 
versies about earthly holy places and temples of 
God made with hands.” —M. ] 

[Ver. 2. The early Christians administered 
milk and honey, which was the ordinary food 
of infants, to such as were newly received into 
the Church; showing them by this sign that by 
their baptism they were born again, and bound to 
manifest the simplicity and innocence of infants 
in their life and conversation.—M. ] 

[ Mosurim :—Ve_r. 8. “The stone of stumbling 
and rock of offence,” as the prophet affirms, is the 
Lord of Hosts Himself; but this ‘‘stone of stum- 
bling and rock of offence,” as asserted by the 


38 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


Apostle, is no other than Christ, the same stone 
which the builders refused. Therefore Christ is 
the Lord of Hosts Himself. If the Scripture, 
thus compared with itself, be drawn up into an 
argument, the conclusion may indeed be denied, 
and so may the whole Bible, but it cannot be 
answered.” —M. ] 


of the metaphor ‘living stones’, as applied to 
Christians ?””—M. ] 


[CLARKE suggests a common Hebrew root 3 
to build of ja ason, JJ a daughter, [73 a 


house and jax a stone. A house (Π)3) is 


[Jones or Naytanp:—‘ Whereunto they were 
also appointed.” Not appointed to be disobe- 
dient, but appointed, since they would be disobe- 
dient, to take their own course and the conse- 
quences of it; to stumble and fall at difficulties, 
of which they would easily have seen the proper 
solution, and so got over them unhurt, had they 
but modestly begged, and dutifully followed, the 
Divine illumination.”—M. ] 


[Ase. SeckER:—Query: ‘ What is the origin 


built of stones (022) , a house or family, 
also called ΓΞ consists of sons (023) and 


daughters (723). The house of God is the 


Church which rests on Christ, the Living Stone, 
and Christians are members of Christ, drawing 
their life from Him and resting on Him, and 
therefore living stones.—M. ]. 


CHAPTER II. 11-17. 


ANALYsIs :—Exhortation to show our election of grace in the various relations of the life of our pilgrimage, primarily 
with respect to established authority. 


11 
12 


Dearly beloved, I beseech you as ‘strangers and pilgrims,’ abstain from fleshly 
lusts, which war against the soul; Having your conversation* honest among the Gen- 
tiles: that, ‘whereas they speak against you as evil doers, they may by your good 
works,’ which they shall behold,° glorify God in the day of visitation. Submit your- 
selves’ to every ordinance of man ® for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king,’ as 
supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by™ him for the punishment 
of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, 
that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, 
and not using" your liberty” for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 
17 Honour” all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. 


13 


14 
15 
16 


Verse 11. [1 Sojourners and strangers; German: guests and strangers.—M. ] 
2 Tisch., 7th ed., reads ἀπέχεσθαι, but ἀπέχεσθε is well supported. [A. C. L. Syr. Copt. Aeth—M.] 
Verse 12. [8 καλὰ ἡ v—good, comely.—M.] 
4év o=in the matter which.—M.] 
δ ἐκ τῶν καλῶν Epyw v—for your good works’ sake.—M.] 
6 Tisch. prefers ἐποπτεύοντες. So Cod. Sin. Render “which they see”, or “being spectators of 
them.”—M.] 
(Cod. Sin. *50faacourpepovery. sic.—M. 
Verse 13. β ὑποτάγητε, Aor. Pass.—=be subjected.—M. 
8 Human institution; German: ordinance, order.—M.] ν 
[κτίσιν ἀνθρωπίνην τὰς ἀρχὰς λέγει τὰς χειροτονητὰς ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων, ἣ καὶ 
αὐτοὺς βασιλεῖς, καθότι καὶ αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων ἐτάχθησαν ἤτοι ετέθησαν. 
Oecum.—M. 
9 Taking, without the Article—M.] 
[0 ὑπερέχοντι, precellenti=super-eminent.—M.] 
(Cod. Sin. omits ody with A.B. C. al. Ἐπάσῃ.--Μ.] 
Verse 14. [ΠῚ 6a—through.—M.] 
12 Well-doers as contrasted with evil-doers.—M. 
Verse 15. [18 Of the foolish men referred to in ver. 12.—M. 
[Cod. Sin. reads φιμοῖ ν.---Μ,} 
Verse 16. fi ὡ ς belongs to ἔχοντες, not toémexaAvppa—M.] 
1 ἐλεύθεροι-εῖγοο, €XcvPe pia—freedom.—M.]| 
(Translate the whole verse: “as free, and not as haying your freedom for a cover of malignity, but as the 
servants of God.”—M.] 
[Cod. Sin. Θεοῦ S00A0t.—M.] 
Verse 17. [16 Give honour to all men. Suwm cuique—M.] 


χεσθαι. mdporxoc—one who lives as a stranger or 
denizen in a country or community; παρεπιδήμος 
= one who stays in a place for a short 
time, like travellers on a journey, ch. i. 1. 
17. By their present state he reminds them of 
the general lot of men on earth. ‘We are in 
body and soul expatriated; nothing is permanent 
on earth.” Caloy. Lasting joys and riches are 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 11. I exhort you, etc.—This exhorta- 
tion alludes to ch. i. 1, and enjoins the cleansing 
of the soul and a comely behaviour among the 
Gentiles, on the grounds of their condition of 
pilgrims.—rapoixove should be joined with ἀπέ- 


CHAPTER 


only in our true home. It is also befitting that 
as strangers you should not offend those among 
whom you live.—aréyeoha even stronger than 
uh συσχηματιζόμενοι, ch. i. 14; it denotes inward 
and outward abstinence. —ocapxixai ἐπιθυμίαεξεε 
ἐπιθυμίαι τῆς σαρκός, Eph. ii. 3; 2. Pet. 11. 18;— 
κοσμικαὶ ἐπιθυμίαι, Tit. ii. 12; ef. 1 Jno. ii. 16. 
In a narrower sense it denies all desires and im- 
pulses that seek pasture* in sensual thoughts and 
gratification—in eating and drinking, and ob- 
scenity and incontinence. The primary refer- 
ence may be to these, but there is also an ulteri- 
or reference to those lusts whose seat is rather in 
the soul than in the body, e. g., hatred, idolatry, 
wrath, conceit of knowledge, avarice, cf. Gal. v. 
19; 1 Cor. iii. 8; Rom. viii. 6; Eph. ii. ὃ: Col. 
ii. 18. Consequently all manifestations and mo- 
tions of the selfishness of man in general. They 
are said to war against the soul; they go out 
against it, surround and assault it. Bengel calls 
this “ἃ great saying”’; cf. Jas. iv. 1; Rom. vii. 
23. The design is not so much to describe the 
nature of the lusts as to enforce the exhortation. 
—«xata τῆς ψυχῆς. Neither the contrast between 
flesh and spirit, described by St. Paul, Rom. vii. 
14, etc.; Gal. vy. 17; nor as Calov and Steiger 
take it, ‘“‘they war against the nature of the re- 
generate soul.”” The proposition is general, and 
ψυχή denotes elsewhere the principle of personal 
life. Ch. i. 9, it is the soul that is to be saved, 
and ch. i. 22, it is the soul that is to be sanctified 
through faith. The life of the soul is hidden, 
hurt and killed by fleshly lusts, cf. Matt. x. 39; 
xvi. 25; Luke xyii. 38. [Alford remarks, “ψυχῆ, 
the man’s personal, immortal part, as opposed to 
his body, his μέλη in which the ἐπιθυμίαι στρατεύον- 
ται is held in suspension between influences from 
above and influences from beneath—drawn up 
and saved, or drawn down and ruined,—and 
among its adversaries are those fleshly lusts, war- 
ring against it to its ruin.”—M. ] 

Ver. 12. Having your conversation good 
among the Gentiles.—davaorpody, ch. i. 14.— 
ἔχοντες. If we donot read ἀπέχεσθε, the Accu- 
sative ought to follow ; but sometimes Participles, 
removed from the verbs by which they are gov- 
erned, stand in an abnormal case; the casus rectus 
gives greater prominence to an idea, υ. Winer 4 
64, 2. Christians are opposed to an ungodly 
world, and are charged to be the salt and the 
light of the world, which closely watches them. 
(Matt. v. 16).—év τοῖς ἔθνεσιν is a hint that the 
Epistle was addressed to Jewish Christians. The 
unbelieving Jews are probably reckoned among 
the ἔθνη; so Weiss.—xadqv. The deeper view of 
Greek philosophy represented immorality and 
ugliness, and morality and beauty as convertible 
ideas. 

In the matter in which they speak 
against you as evil doers.—éyv ᾧ not: instead 
of, while, but in the same matter, in the same oc- 
casion in which, because of which, they speak 
against you as evil doers. [The sense is, ‘that 
that conduct, which was to them an occasion of 
speaking against you as evil doers, may by your 


* The readers of this Commentary will pardon my attempt 
to give currency to a most striking Germanism; I do so on 
the supposition that every term of speech which sheds light 
on the workings of the mind and soul, is a most valuable ac- 
cession to language.—M, 


II. 11-17. 39 


good works become to them an occasion of glori- 
fying God. Alford.—M.] Join ἐν @ with δοξά- 
σωσι, ef. ch. iii. 16. It was just the good conver- 
sation of Christians, their Christian works, 
judged superficially and referred to evil motives, 
that gave occasion to the heathen to slander and 
persecute them. ἐν © is defined by καλὰ ἔργα, 
compare in point of language, Rom. ii. 1.—xare- 
λαλοῦσιν ὑμῶν ὡς kaxororov.—Tertullian says: If 
the Tiber rises to the walls of the city, if the 
Nile does not irrigate the fields, if an earthquake 
takes place, if famine or the pestilence arise, they 
ery forthwith: Away with the Christians to the 
lions. 

For your good works’ sake - - glorify.— 
ἐποπτεύσαντες refers to ἐν ᾧ, from which we must 
supply τοῦτο. It signifies: to look closely upon 
a thing in order to see through it. So it was 
applied to those mysteries which were difficult to 
explain, cf. ch. iii. 2; Eph. iii. 4. Superficial 
observers, as appears from the account given by 
Tacitus, regarded the brotherly love of the 
Christians as a secret covenant imperilling the 
state, their decision as obstinacy, their heavenly- 
mindedness as hatred of thehumanrace. Their 
departure from the sinful customs of their fath- 
ers was treated as contempt for and rejection of 
all human ordinances, ef. ch. ii. 19, 20; ili. 10- 
12,17; iv. 15; ii. 14. A definite date, e. g., the 
time of the persecutions under Nero, or even un- 
der Trajan, can hardly be substantiated. Join 
ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων to δοξάσωσιν, for the good 
works’ sake, proceeding out of them. 

dofdowolrv. —Calyin rightly observes that our 
aim ought not to be to make unbelievers speak 
and think well of us, but rather to keep before 
our eyes the glory of God. More correct knowl- 
edge may constrain them to glorify God, to give 
honour to God, of whom believers are said to be 
the children. Peter evidently thinks of the words 
of Jesus at Matt. v. 16. Roos adds: In such a 
case we must not always look for a proper praise 
of God. Provided people praise the good works, 
they praise our heavenly Father, as the Author 
of them, just as he that praises the good man- 
ners of a child, virtually bestows praise on his 
instructor. Although people treat the faith of 
God’s children as superstition and folly, they may 
for all that praise their works, and thus give glo- 
ry to God. Justin Martyr supplies an illustra- 
tion of such δοξάζειν. He confesses that, when 
still a heathen, he deemed it impossible that the 
Christians could be addicted to the unnatural 
vices of which they were accused, because they 
were so ready to die for Christ. 

In the day of visitation.—ézvokory, ἐπίσκεπ- 


τέσθαι--:- 395 denotes both the merciful visita- 


tion of God, and His judicial and primitive in- 
quisition; for the former sense cf. Gen. xxi. 1; 
1, 24; Ex. 111. 16; iv. 81; 1 Sam. ii. 21; Job vii. 
18; Lke. i. 68. 78; Acts xv. 14; for the latter, 
see Jer. ix. 24. 25; xliv. 18; xlvi. 25; ix. 9; Ps. 
lix. 6; Ex. xx. 5. Commentators are divided, 
either sense finding many advocates. It is per- 
haps best to combine both views, as the Apostle 
himself does not define his meaning, and as both 
visitations of mercy and wrath, do often occur 
together. It is by no means an insoluble riddle 
that unbelievers are made to glorify God by suf- 


40 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


ferings, since experience shows that in seasons 
of heavy judgments, stony hearts are sometimes 
softened and melted. The word ἡμέρᾳ relates, as 
is often the case, to longer periods of time than 
a day of twenty-four hours. The allusion here 
is neither to the day of judgment (as Bede main- 
tains), nor to an investigation of the life of be- 
lievers on thé part of the world (as Roos sug- 
gests). 

[The day of God’s visitation in wars, earth- 
quakes, plagues, etc., brought out the faith and 
love of the Christians, as contrasted with that of 
the Jews and Heathens. Wordsworth cites the 
history of the plague at Carthage, in Cyprian’s 
Episcopate, as described by his deacon, Pontius, 
p. 6. ‘The majority of our brethren,” says 
Pontius, ‘“‘took care of every one but themselves ; 
by nursing the sick, and watching over them in 
Christ, they caught the disorder which they 
healed in others, and breathed their last with 
joy; some bare in their arms and bosoms the 
bodies of dead saints, and having closed the eyes 
of the dying, and bathed their corpses, and per- 
formed the last obsequies, received the same 
treatment at the hands of their brethren. But 
the very reverse of this was done by the Gentiles ; 
those who were sinking into sickness, they drove 
from them; they fled from their dearest friends; 
they threw them expiring into the streets, and 
turned from their unburied ‘corpses with looks 
of execration.” See also Cyprian’s words in his 
treatise published on that occasion, De Mortali- 
tate, sive Peste, capp. 9. 10: Mortalitas ἰδία, ut 
Judezis et Gentilibus et Christi hostibus pestis est, ita 
Dei servis salutaris excessus est.—M. } 

Ver. 18. Be subjected, therefore, to ev- 
ery human institution, etc.—From the whol- 
ly general precept concerning the conversation 
of Christians among the heathen, the Apostle, 
moved by the very common slanders uttered 
against them, that they were dangerous to the 
State, and aiming at the overthrow of all the bands 
of law, takes occasion to descend to the most or- 
dinary duties, to the exhortation of submitting 
to the secular authority, and of not abusing 
Christian liberty. 

inéraynte.—The Aorist Pass. is sometimes used 
in a Middle sense, υ. Winer.—oiv primarily con- 
nects with v. 12, secondarily with v. 11.--- πάσῃ 
ἀνθρωπίνῃ Kricet.—The word κτίσις, like κτίζειν, is 
generally applied to Divine creations and insti- 
tutions, or used to denote a creature; but here 
the adjective ἀνθρωπίνῃ shows that it signifies any 
institution or appointment irrespective of origin. 
Limiting κτίσις to the idea of the Divine in- 
stitution of the world is confusing. The Apostle 
intends by the use of the adjective ἀνθρωπίνῃ 
to meet the objection that Christians, in view of 
their Christian liberty, were bound to-obey only 
authorities immediately appointed by God, be- 
cause there was much sinfulness mixed up with 
such human institutions; he further desires to 
distinguish the Divine ordinance of the State 
from that of the Church, ch. ii. 5, without, how- 
ever, denying the mediately Divine institution of 
the secular power, as Paul avers at Rom. xiii. 1. 
2.4. Flacius rightly remarks: “It is called a 
human ordinance because secular constitutions 


*obv is wanting in A. B. C. and other Manuscripts. 


do not originate in an explicit and specific word 
of God, as true religion does; but they are rath- 
er ordained by man and his agency, at least as 
far as we are able to judge, that cannot see the 
hidden sway of God.” If this Epistle belongs 
to the time of Nero, light is shed on the selection 
of this predicate. Peter may have recollected 
the words of his Master, Matt. xvii. 26.27. Lu- 
ther comments in this respect as follows: ‘Al- 
though you are free in all externals (for you are 
Christians) and ought not be forced by law to be 
subjected to secular rule (for there is no law for 
the just [ἡ e., to the justified—M.]), yet you 
ought spontaneously to yield a ready and unco- 
erced obedience, not because necessity compels 
you, but that you may please God, and benefit 
yourneighbour. Thus did Christ act, as we read, 
Matt. xvii.”—adoy—be it Heathen, Jewish, or 
Christian authority; be it this or that constitu- 
tion. 

[ Wordsworth :—‘‘ Water may be made to as- 
sume different forms, in fountains and cascades, 
and be made to flow in different channels or aque- 
ducts, by the hand of man ; but the element itself, 
which flows ‘in them, is from God. So again, 
marble may be hewn by man’s hand into different 
shapes: under the sculptor’s chisel it may become 
a statue, a frieze or sarcophagus, but the marble 
itself is from the quarry, it is from the creative 
hand of God.—So it is with the civil power. 
The form which power may assume, and the per- 
son who may be appointed to exercise it, may be 
κτίσεις ἀνθρώπιναι, ordinances of man; but the au- 
thority itself (ἐξουσία) is from God. Consequently, 
as St. Peter teaches, we are bound to submit to 
every ordinance of man, in all lawful things, ‘‘ for 
the Lord's sake,’ whose ministers and vicegerents 
our rulers are; and, as St. Paul declares, ‘he 
that resisteth the authority, resisteth the ordinance 
of God, and they that resist shall receive to them- 
selves damnation.” See Rom. xiii. 1-3.—M.] 

For the Lord’s sake.—Probably to be un- 
derstood of God the Father, who had been men- 
tioned in y. 12, although ν. 3, and elsewhere in 
Peter, as in Paul, Christ is called Lord. [Butis 
not the reference rather to Christ? For, 1. 
κύριος with Peter always describes Christ, except 
in quotations from the O. T. (Alford): 2. Chris- 
tians derive their liberty from their union to 
Christ.—M.] The sense is: because God de- 
mands it, because He has founded this institu- 
tion, Rom. xiii. 1.5. This defines, also, the limits 
of Christian subjection: the duty of obedience 
ceases, where God from heaven decisively forbids 
it, Acts iv. 19; v.29. The Apostle specifies two 
classes of political powers whom Christians are 
bound to obey: first, the king or emperor, sec- 
ond, his ambassadors or representatives. ‘The 
Jews and the Greeks called the Roman Impera- 
tor, king.—é¢ ὑπερέχοντι.---ὡς denotes a well 
known reason. ὑπερέχοντι, wielding the highest 
sovereign power on earth. Otherwise, 1 Tim. ii. 
1, Bengel rightly: supereminens.—avrov con- 
nects, of course, with βασιλεῖ, not with κύριος. 
‘“‘In inferior powers, we must see and honour the 
king, in the king, God Himself.” Gerhard. The 
ethical purpose of the power wielded by all au- 
thorities is to punish evil-doers, and to recognize 
the good with marks of praise and approbation, 
ef. Rom. xiii. 8. 4. Calov cites the language of 


CHAPTER 11. 11-17. 


41 


Plato, that rewards and punishments keep the 
state together, and quotes from Cicero the saying 
of Solon, that the state is best governed if the 
good are attracted by rewards and the evil kept 
in bounds by punishment.—éxdixyouc, not execu- 
tion of the laws, but punishment, vengeance.— 
κακοποιῶν, to be taken in a general, objectively 
ethical sense, and to be interpreted by ch. iy. 15, 
which treats of murderers and other malefactors. 
This passage contains not the faintest reference, 
altogether, to the character of Christians, as 
drawn by Suetonius and Tacitus, to wit, that 
they were political offenders. How could the 
Apostle have subscribed to such a delineation of 
their character! This passage, therefore, can- 
not be used to determine the date of the Epistle. 
—ératvoc, recognition by word and deed, praise, 
protection and promotion. 

Ver. 15. For so is the will of God - - 
men.—Gerhard:—Even though your innocence 
and obedience are insufficient to effect the con- 
version of others or their praising God, you will 
be able, according to the will of God, to silence 
blasphemers.—otrwe cori, after this manner, is the 
will of God. [Then follows what the will of God 
is in this direction, viz.: ἀγαθοποιοῦντας φιμοῦν κ. 
τ. A.—M. 1---φιμοῦν from φιμός, a muzzle, to muzzle, 
to shut up the mouth, as with a muzzle, cf. Deut. 
xxy. 4; Sir. xx. 31.—This ignorance originated in 
the corruption of the heart, and in its turn influ- 
enced it, (ch. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 34; Jno. xvi. 3). 
It was marked by varying degrees of guilt. 
Paul contrasts the knowledge of the Divine will 
with this state of ignorance, Eph. v. 17. Be- 
cause they are blind as to Divine things, they are 
unable to understand our manner of conversation. 

[ Wordsworth:—‘‘Christ was crucified by the 
power of Rome, as He had foretold that He would 
be (Matt. xx. 19). St. Peter and St. Paul, as 
they also foreknew, were martyred by Rome; 
but yet they preached submission to Rome.””—M. ] 

Ver. 16. As free - - God.—oc ἐλεύθεροι may 
best be construed as the antecedent of the next 
verse, but only of its first member, πάντας τιμή- 
cate. To construe it with v. 15 would require 
ἐλευθέρους. [But even this limitation to the first 
member of vy. 17 renders such a construction 
hardly tenable. The supposition of the contrary 
seems to establish its untenableness. Does my 
freedom absolve me from the obligation of hon- 
ouring all men? Am 1 not bound, on the general 
ground of Christian duty and equity, to give to 
all their due? On the whole, I consider the ex- 
planation of Wiesinger, adopted by Alford, the 
best, viz.: toregard v. 16 as an epexegesis on v. 
15, not carrying on the construction with an Ac- 
cusative, but with a Nominative, as already inv. 
12, and, indeed, even more naturally here, be- 
cause not the act consequent on ἀγαθοποιεῖν, as 
there on ἀπέχεσθαι, is specified, but the antece- 
dent state and Christian mode of ἀγαθοποιεῖν. 
For arguments see Wiesinger and Alford.—M. ] 
It is different with v. 12. Such subjection and 
true Christian liberty are not irreconcilable an- 
tagonisms. For the latter, founded on the re- 
demption through Christ, is spiritual in its na- 
ture; it delivers us from sin and error, from the 
world and the devil, and unites us to God and 
His word by the bands of love, οἵ. Jno. viii. 82: 
Rom. vi. 18, 22; Gal. v. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 19. In 


the sequel Peter cuts off all misunderstanding 
and abuse of liberty. The Gmnostics abused 
Christian liberty by the commission of all kinds 
of infamous and criminal indulgences. The Jews, 
on the plea of being the people of God’s inherit- 
ance, claimed to be free from the laws of the 
heathen. On this account we read: ‘‘and not as 
having [—not as those who have—M.] freedom 
for a cover of malignity.”” It is uncertain wheth- 
er (as Cornelius and others suppose) there is here 
an allusion to the white baptismal robe, which 
was also a symbol of the liberty obtained through 
Christ. — ἐπικάλυμμα = παρακάλυμμα, something 
spread in order to covera thing, hence, a cloak, 
a cover, a veil. Luther says: ‘If Christian 
liberty is preached, godless men without faith im- 
mediately rush in, and claim to be good Chris- 
tians because they do not keep the laws of the 
Pope.” —xaxia should not be explained with Wie- 
singer in the restricted sense of disobedience 
to the magistrate, but in a wider sense, just as 
the antithesis ἀγαθοποιεῖν is a more general idea. 
-δοῦλοι Ocov.—To serve God, says Augustine, is 
the highest liberty. What was expected of Israel 
as a nation (often called the servant of God, Is. 
xliv. 1, 21; xlviii. 20; Jerem. xxx. 10); what 
Jesus was in ἃ. peculiar sense (and Peter calls 
Him so by preference, Acts 111. 13. 26; iv. 27. 
30), should be realized in every believer of the 
New Testament. 

Ver. 17. Honourall men.—The chief duties 
of a good conversation among the Gentiles are 
now briefly comprehended, according to the sey- 
eral relations in which they βίδπα. -- τιμήσατε, 
Aorist Imper., used of actions that are either 
rapidly completed and transient, or viewed as 
occurring but once. Winer ¢ 48, 3, a. 

All men.—Not only the chief, but all men. 
In your intercourse with equals, show to each the 
respect you owe them, first, as God’s creatures, 
Jas. ili. 9, and, secondly, as having been re- 
deemed by Christ, ef. ch. vy. 5. 63 iii. 8; Matt. 
xx. 26; xxili. 12; Lke. xiv. 11; xviii. 14; xxii. 
26, 27; Mk. x. 48. 44. The passage, Ps. xv. 4, 
rightly translated, is not in conflict with this ex- 
hortation. Paul, in a similar exhortation, takes 
cognizance of civil position and personal good- 
ness, Rom. xiii. 7. To qualify this passage by 
limitation is arbitrary. τιμᾶτε, from τίω, to value, 
to define and pay the value of a thing or person. 

ἀδελφότης, the brotherhood yiewed as a whole, 
all who are, or are called your brothers, ef. ch. 
i. 22. Because such a disposition of esteem for 
and brotherly love of all can only flow from a 
true relation to God, the next exhortation is: 
‘‘Fear God,” cf. ch. i. 17. Holy fear of the 
majesty of God is peculiarly in place, if you are 
tempted to abuse your Christian liberty. ‘‘He 
that fears God, loves his brethren, and embraces 
all mankind with becoming love, will not fail to 
render also to kings the honour that is due to 
them.” Calvin. Peter probably recollects Prov. 
xxiv. 21, which defines the same attitude of fear- 
ing God and honouring the king. Weiss calls at- 
tention to Matt. xxii. 21. [The variations of the 
Imperative form in this verse are noteworthy and 
suggestive. τιμήσατε, the Aor. Imper., marks the 
general principle, the following three Present Im- 
peratives define its application in particular re- 
lations.—M. ] 


42 THE FIRST EPISTLE 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Peter in the second part of the Epistle, ch. 
11, 11, resumes the thought that believers are citi- 
zens of another fatherland, and only strangers 
here on earth, cf. ch. i. 1. 4; v. 10; 1.17. This 
fundamental view of the Apostle runs through the 
whole Epistle; on it are based the exhortations 
which follow ch. iv. 6. It must, consequently, 
be of the highest importance that we should con- 
stantly keep up a lively sense of our status as 
strangers. It belongs to the most noble and 
powerful incentives to sanctification, ef. 2 Cor. v. 
Θ: ΘΟ. ee hile ΤΠ 20. 

2. Holy Scripture wisely prescribes no rules 
as to the best form of constitution: we learn 
from the Old Testament that the theocratic form 
of government is, properly speaking, the institu- 
tion which corresponds to the willof God; this is 
also the end contemplated by Christianity. God 
is to be the all-animating principle in those who 
gladly obey Him, 1 Cor. xv. 28; Rey. xxi. 3; 
xxii. 3. But this endcan be attained only after 
Satan has been bound, and after the great sepa- 
ration has been consummated, Mal. iv. 2; Matt. 
xiii. 40, etc. Many, impatiently anxious to an- 
ticipate the end towards which the development 
of the Christian Church is being led, rejected ex- 
isting forms of government. Hence the Apostle 
exhorts, substantially, that it is the part of true 
Christians to be subjected to any human institu- 
tion, whether monarchical, republican or aristo- 
cratic. The only limitation set to obedience to 
the government is its commanding any thing 
which militates against the clearly revealed will 
of God. Itis not for us to ask how such and 
such a ruler did acquire his power, whether the 
constitution of a state be so framed as to contain 
the fundamental laws of God for the regulation 
of human relations, (as some try to press the 
word κτίσις), but we must obey for the Lord’s 
sake, who says: “ΒΥ me kings reign and princes 
decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, 
even all the judges of the earth.’”’ Proy. viii. 15. 
16. All rebellion against the ordained govern- 
ment is to be repudiated, as our evangelical 
Church has established it from the beginning, 
contrary to jesuitico-papistical teaching. [Fron- 
miiller refers to Germany. Those who wish to 
see the whole subject illustrated on sound Church 
principles are referred to the Homilies against 
Wilful Rebellion in the Book of Homilies, authori- 
tatively set forth by the Church of England, and 
received by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States ‘as an explication of Christian doc- 
trine and instructive in piety and morals.” —M. ] 


institution or ordinance, the Apostle does not de- 
prive governments of the honour that they are 
the servants of God, Rom. xiii. 1, ete. The state 
and office of the government are God-derived; 
they have, indeed, in course of time, manifold 
human shapes, and in the hands of men have 
been variously instituted, But even this human 
element, so far from serving as a pretext for the 
withdrawal of submission, should rather be a 
root of patience, gladly to put up with human 
and inevitable infirmities, even in this respect.” 

3. The Christian must adapt himself to every 


GENERAL OF PETER. 


form of government, and, as a pilgrim, finds it 
not difficult so to do. 

4. Every government is bound, for its own in- 
terest, to punish the wicked, and to protect the 
good. An unchristian, unjust government is a 
sore punishment to a country; but there is no 
greater evil than anarchy, as Sophocles already 
perceived. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


What is necessary to walk as a pilgrim on 
earth? 1. Abstaining from fleshly lusts; 2. 
Obeying all human governments; 3. Patiently 
suffering wrong.—Which are the marks that a 
Christian is a stranger and pilgrim here? Con- 
sider, (a) his speech; (6) his carriage; (6) his 
manners; (4) his aims.—The Christian state a 
continuous warfare, Job vii. 1; Ps. xxiv. 8:—1. 
the enemies; 2. the weapons; 3. the victory.— 
Walk as lights in the heathenish-minded world! 
—The manifold days of visitation——The Chris- 
tian’s demeanour towards the secular power.— 
How to shut up most effectually the mouth of the 
ignorant ?—The Pharisaic hearts that make lib- 
erty the cloak of maliciousness.—True liberty a 
blessed bondage before God.—The four main 
points of a good conversation in this world.— 
Why and how we should, as Christians, give 
honour to all men? 

Kaprr:—What makes up true liberty? 1. To 
be the servants of God and Jesus; 2. to be sub- 
ject, for the Lord’s sake, to all human authority; 
3. to lead a good conversation, as strangers in 
the world. 

Sravupt :—Maintaining the state of strangers: 
1. In relation to the flesh; 2. In relation to the 
world. 

Srarke:—Pilgrim, how long dost thou stay at 
the inn? Yonder is thy fatherland. Away with 
the voluptuous joys of the village, through which 
thou art journeying!—He that would be free 
from the breaking out of the lusts of the flesh, 
must seize them by the root and choke them in 
the beginning.—Fleshly lusts, though they begin 
sweetly and are soothing to the heart, are the 
soul’s inveterate enemies, and bring forth sin, 
Jas. 1. 15; Sir. xxi. 8.—Fie! Christians like 
heathen. Beware and pray, ‘‘ Gracious God, put 
an end to gross offences.”—The more a man is 
surrounded by false, hostile, watching people, the 
more must he be on his guard, not only to avoid 
evil, but the appearance of it, 1 Thess. y. 22.— 
The pious have always to endure slander, yet 
their best defence is not in their mouth or pen, 
but in their works and deeds, y. 15.—A Chris- 
tian’s holy conversation must also aim at the 
conversion of others, which is realized in the 
case of some, ch. iii. 1.—The secular power is as 
much bound to reward virtue as to punish wick- 
edness, Ps. Ixxxii. 8. 4; Prov. xx. 26.—Calum- 
nies are best contradicted, if we prove by a holy 
conversation that they are untrue.—To requite 
evil with good has generally a good effect.—We 
are free, but not from the law of Christ and God, 
1 Cor. ix. 21.—Christian courtesy tends to good 
reputation, to the favour and good-will of our 
neighbour, and to reciprocal good-will and confi- 
dence, Rom. xii. 10.—Mark that the fear of God 


CHAPTER II. 11-17. 


is mentioned first, the honour of the magistrate 
afterwards, Acts y. 29.—There are two kingdoms, 
God’s and the emperor’s, each must remain with- 
in its bounds; God reserves to Himself the 56] 
and conscience; the body, goods and possessions 
are under the emperor’s rule, Matt. xxii. 21. 

Lisco:—Walk, as it pleases God.—Which is the 
deepest foundation of Christian morality ?—How 
does a Christian’s liberty exhibit itself? 

Basle Collections: — Christian abstinence: 1. 
its nature; 2. its motives. 

[Leicguton:—Ver. 11. There is a faculty of 
reproving required in the Ministry, and some- 
times a necessity of very sharp rebukes, cutting 
ones. They that have much of the spirit of meek- 
ness may have a rod by them, too, to use upon 
necessity; but sure the way of meekness is that 
they use most willingly.—It was a very wise 
abridgment that Epictetus made of philosophy, 
into those two words, bear and forbear.—It was 
the high speech of a heathen, That he was greater, 
and born to greater things, than to be a servant to his 
body; how much more ought he that is born 
again to say so, being born heir to ‘a crown 
that fadeth not away”! ch. v. 4.—Fleshly lusts.— 
They war against the soul; and their war is made 
up of stratagem and sleight, for they cannot hurt 
the soul but by itself. They promise it some 
contentment, and so gain its consent to serve them 
and undo itself; they embrace the soul that they 
may strangle it.—Ver. 12. Mark three things, 1. 
one point of a Christian’s ordinary entertainment 
in the world is, to be evil spoken of; 2. Their 
good use of that evil, to do the better for it; 8. 
The good end and certain effect of their so doing, 
the glory of God.—The goodness or beauty of a 
Christian’s conversation consisting in symmetry 
and conformity to the word of God as its rule, he 
ought diligently to study that rule and to square 
his ways by it; not to walk at random, but to 
apply that rule to every step at home and abroad, 
and to be as careful to keep the beauty of his 
ways unspotted, as those women are of their 
faces and attire, that are most studious of come- 
liness.—What have we to do in the world as His 
creatures, once and again His creatures, His new 
creatures, created unto good works, Eph. ii. 10, 
but to exercise ourselves in those, and by those 
to advance His glory?—that all may return to 
Him, from whom allis, as the riversrun back tothe 
sea, from whence they came.—VeEr. 15. Whereas 
those that have most real goodness, delight most 
to observe what is good and commendable in 
others, and to pass by their blemishes, it is the 
true character of vile, unworthy persons (as flies 
sit upon sores) to skip over all the good that is in 
men and fasten upon their infirmities. —And this 
is a wise Christian’s way, instead of impatiently 
fretting at the mistakes or wilful miscensures of 
men, to keep still on in his calm temper of mind 
and upright course of life and silent innocence; 
this, as a rock, breaks the waves into foam that 
roar about it.—M. ] 

[Warspurton:—Ver. 13. 14. Reward cannot, 
properly, be the sanction of human laws.—M. ] 

[ Harrineton:—To say, because civil magistra- 
cy is ordained of God, therefore it cannot be the 
ordinance of man, is as if you said: God ordained 
the temple, therefore, it was not built by masons; 
He ordained the snuffers, therefore, they were not 
made by a smith.—M. ] 


43 


[WuatEety:—A timely, steady and mild resist- 
ance, on legal grounds, to every unlawful stretch 
of power (as in the well-known case of the ship- 
money) will prove the most effectual means, if 
uniformly resorted to, for preventing the occur- 
rence of those desperate and extreme cases which 
call for violent and dangerous remedies.—M. ] 

[ M.:—The principle on which we should resist 
ordinances in conflict with the will of God is 
fortiter in re sed leniter in modo. | 


[Lurner:—Ver. 16. Christ’s truth maketh us 
free, not civilly, nor carnally, but divinely. Weare 
made free in such sort, that our conscience is free 
and quiet, not fearing the wrath of God to come. 
This is the true and inestimable liberty, to the 
excelleney and majesty of which, if we compare 
the other, they are but as one drop of water in 
respect of theocean. For whois able to express 
what a thing it is, when a man is assured in his 
heart that God neither is, nor ever will be angry 
with him, but will be forever a merciful and lov- 
ing Father to him, for Christ’s sake! This is, 
indeed, a marvellous and incomprehensible lib- 
erty, to have the Most High Sovereign Majesty so 
favourable to us that He doth not only defend, 
maintain and succour us in this life, but also, as 
touching our bodies, will so deliver us as that, 
though sown in corruption, dishonour and infir- 
mity, they shall rise again in incorruption, and 
glory, and power. This is an inestimable liberty, 
that we are made free from the wrath of God for- 
ever, and is greatly more valuable than heaven 
and earth and the created universe. ‘Blessed 
is the man who is in such a case; yea, blessed is 
the man whose God is the Lord.”’—M. ] 

[OLSHAUSEN :— Without law, or altogether above 
the law, man can never be, for the law is the ex- 
pression of the Divine Essence itself.—M. ] 

[ Mitron :—There are 


“That bawl for freedom in their senseless mood, 
And still revolt when truth would set them free; 
License they mean when they cry liberty.”—M.] 


[SANDERSON :—Luther complains of ‘“‘men who 
would be accounted good Christians merely be- 
cause they rejected the authority of the Pope; 
who will do nothing that either the magistrate or 
God would have them to do; remaining in their 
old, disorderly nature, however much they may 
make their boast of the Gospel;’’ and who, as 
Calvin says, ‘‘reckoned it a great part of Chris- 
tian liberty, that they might eat flesh on Fridays,” 
Better is it by voluntary abstinence to part 
with some of our liberty as to God’s creatures, 
than by voluntary transgression to become the 
devil’s captives.—M. ] 

[ Hooker:—It was not the meaning of our Lord . 
and Saviour, in saying ‘Father, keep them in 
Thy name,” that we should be careless in keeping 
ourselves. To our own safety our own sedulity 
is required.—M. ] 

[Barrow:—Ver. 17. Human nature has become 
adorable as the true Shechinah, the everlasting 
palace of the Supreme Majesty, wherein the ful- 
ness of the Godhead dwelleth bodily; the most 
holy shrine of the Divinity, the orb of inaccess- 
ible light, as this, and more than all this, if more 
could be expressed, or, if we could explain that 
text, “ΤῊ word was made flesh and dwelt among 
us.” —M. ] 


44 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


[Sanperson:—When a piece of metal is coined 
with the king’s stamp, and made current by his 
edict, no man may henceforth presume either to 
refuse it in payment, or to abate the value of it; 
so God, having stamped His own image upon 
every man, and, withal, signified His blessed 
pleasure, how precious He would have him to be 
in our eyes and esteem, by express edict pro- 
claiming, ‘‘At the hand of every man’s brother 
will I require the life of man; I require every 
man to be his brother’s keeper: for in the image 
of God made He man.”’—M. ] 

[The brotherhood.—Cf. Rom. xvi. 1; 3 Jno. 8. 
9. When a Christian entered a foreign city, his 


first inquiry was for the Church (the brother- 


-hood); and here he was received as a brother, 


agil supplied with whatever could contribute to 
his spiritual or bodily refreshment. The Church 
letters, which were as tesserae hospitales, received 
the name of γράμματα τετυπωμένα, epistolae ferma- 
tae, because, to guard against counterfeits, they 
were drawn up after a certain form, τύπος ; and 
also γράμματα κοινωνικὰ, epistolae communicatoriae, 
inasmuch as they indicated that the bearers were 
in the fellowship of the Church. used. 4, 23; 
Cyprian, Ep. 1Π1.;: Neander vol. I. 3 2, p. 280.— 
Sic honorandus rex, ut ne contra Deum peccemus. 
Curysostom.—M. | 


rs 
CHAPTER II. 18-25. 
ANALysIs :—Exhortation of believing servants to self-denying obedience in doing and suffering after the example of Christ. 


18 Servants,’ be subject to your masters with? all fear; not only to the good and gen- 
19 tle, but also to the froward.* For this 7s thankworthy,‘ if a man for conscience® to- 
20 ward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory 7s τέ, if, when ye be 
baffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer 
21 for it,® ye take it patiently, this 7s acceptable’ with God. For even hereunto were ye 
called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us* an example, that ye should 
22 follow his steps: Who did ποῦ sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 
23 Who, when he was reviled,” reviled not again; when he suffered," he threatened 
24 not; but committed himse/f” to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self 
bare our sins in his own body on“ the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live 
25 unto righteousness: by whose stripes’ ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going 
astray; '’ but are’ now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 


δεσπόταις ὑ μῶ ν Cod. Sin—M.] 
1 Domestics, family servants. οἰκέτης not so harsh as δοῦλος. 
Cod. Sin.—M. | 
[3 €v=in, not with—M.] 


[3σκολιός-- voy Deut. xxxii. 5, crooked, perverse. These ox oAéoc are “ salvi et intractabiles, duri uc 


morost,” so Gerhard.—M.]} 
(Cod. Sin. ἐν παντ. b6B. ὑ π.---Μ.] 

Verse 19. [5 For this is grace, so German for χάρις, but χάρις not—gratia divina but—laus. ΟΥ̓. Calvin, “ Idem vatet 
nomen gratis quod laudis. Intelligit enim nullam gratiam vel laudem conciliari nobis coram Deo, si pe- 
nam sustinemus quam nostris delictis simus promeriti: sed qui patienter ferunt injurias, eos laude dignos 
esse, et opus facere Deo acceptum.”—M-} 

{5 Consciousness, not conscience. The man knows that God is cognizant of his suffering, and acts rather 
with respect to God than to man. German: MMitwissen, not Gewissen, the former denoting cognizance 
in the sense of joint knowing, the latter, conscience. Render the whole verse, “ For this is grace, if, on 
account of God’s cognizance, any one endures tribulations (Av ras), suffering wrongfully.—M. ] 

motov—German ‘was fiir ein, or English, ‘what kind of’—M.] ‘ 

ὁ Θά. Sin.koAagépmevor ὑπομένετε. German, “suffer patiently.’ The participial construction of 
the Greek is, on the whole, preferable to English version. “For what kind of glory (is it) if doing 
wrong (sinning), and being buffeted, ye endure it patiently? but if well doing, and suffering (for it), ye 
endure (it) patiently, this is grace.”’—M.] 3 4 

[7 χάρις, as above, “with God.” The idea here, and in ν. 19, seems to be that such conduct is the evidence 
f grace received, as none but a child of grace would thus act.—M.] 

. [8 οὔ. Sin. reads ἀπέθανεν (died) for ἔπαθεν (suffered)—yjuov ὑμῖν is the reading supported by the 
greatest number of MSS. Another reading, ἡμῶν ἡμῖν, according to Syr. Copt. Ephr. Aug., and 
still another, ὑμῶν ὑμῖν, Elzevir, Alford; on this last is based the German version, which renders 
“suffered for you, leaving you, etc.”—M.] 

[ ὑπογραμμός--ἢ copy-head,—a pattern, to write or paint by.—M.] { Ἶ 

[9 ἐποίησεν, the Aorist, as distinguished from the Imperfect, é€ oct, has the force of “never in a single 
instance.’ Alford.—M.] 

[Cod. Sin. ἢ ὑ p €@.—M.] 

Verse 23, [ The German retains the preferable participial form.—M.] 

[f° Render thus: “ Who being reviled, reviled not again, suffering, threatened not.”—M. ] | F 

[13 παρεδίδον, either, “ delivered (His enemies) up to (the Father),” so Alford, or, “delivered (His cause) 

up to (the Father”); in either case, as Alford suggests, perhaps not without reference to ‘“ Father, for- 
give them; for they know not what they do.”—M.] 
[Cod Sin. Ἐἐλοιδόρει.---Μ.] 
Verse 24. [18 “ Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.”—M.] 


Verse 18. 
‘In all fear be subject to your masters,’ 


Verse 20. 


Verse 21 


Verse 22. 


CHAPTER II. 18-25. 


45 


a 


[4 The force of ἀνήνεγκεν is that “ He took our sins to the tree, and offered them up onit.” Alford. Cf. Vit- 


ringa in Huther: 


Via uno verbo ἔμφασις πνοοῖς ἀναφέρειν exprimi potest. Nota FERRE ¢¢ OFFERRE. 


Primo dicere voluit Petrus, Christum portasse peccata nostra, in quantum rlla tpsi erantimposita. Secun- 


do, ita tulisse peccata nostra, ut ea secum obtulertt in altart. 


Respicit ad animantes, quibus peccata primo 


imponebantur, quique deinceps peccatis onusti offerebantur. Sed in quamaram? ξύλον att Petrus, lig- 


num, h, 6. crucem.—M. ] 


[5 amoyevouevo t=having died. The German renders, “ that, having died to sins (7. @., our own), we should 
live to the righteousness of Him by whose stripe ye are healed”; but this construction is untenable on 


textual grounds.—M.] 


[6 Stripe, singular, is the right rendering of μώλωπι: 


estis. 


μώλωψ. “ Paradoxon apostolicum : vibice sanati 


Est autem μώ λω ψ vibex, frequens in corpore servili, Sir. 12, 12.” Bengel.—M.] 


Cod. Sin. *¥r@ σω μ. without év.—p ώ Aw. without αὐτο ve—M.| 
Verse 25. [17 Translate: “For ye were straying (ἦτε πλανώμενοι) like sheep.”—M.] 
" The German renders ἐπεστράφητε passively, “ye are brought back”; but the 2 Aor. Pass, ἐπεστρά- 
$v, is often found in a Middle sense, cf. Matt. ix. 22; x.13; Mark υ. 30,—translate, therefore, “but ye 


have returned.”—M. ] 
[Cod. Sin. rAavaipevor.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 18. Domestics—but also to the 
crooked.—oixéra: less harsh and more compre- 
hensive than δοῦλοι. Estius in Calov shrewdly 
suggests that the Apostle may have selected this 
designation because he was addressing Jot 
Christians, to whom the term ‘slave’ was ob- 
noxious, as incompatible with the people of God. 

iroraccouevot.—The most simple construction 
is to connect the Participle with the preceding 
Imperatives, especially with the τὸν Θεὸν φοβεῖσθε, 
to which the following ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ seems also 
to refer. It is the Apostle’s way to intertwine 
his sentences after this manner: the following 
exhortations begin with similar participial sen- 
tences, ch. ili. 1. 7.8.9. We learn from it, that 
he considers the duties to which he exhorts in- 
cluded in the principal duty, v.12. He particu- 
larizes the exhortation, v. 13, as to the manner 
how the fear of God should be evidenced, v. 17. 

In all fear.—Primarily, holy awe of God, 
after v. 17. (Cf. Col. iii. 22; Eph. vi. 5; with 
full, entire fear; but it also involves the dread 
of ‘an earthly master. There are, as Cornelius 
observes, different kinds of fear: a, fear of pun- 
ishment; ὦ, fear of the guilt of offending God; 
c, fear of theoffence of exciting masters to ani- 
mosity against the faith. 

ἀγαθοῖς good in themselves and kind to others. 
- - ἐπιεικῆς indicates a particular exhibition of 
ayafoc=indulgent, yielding, kind like the Syrian 


captain, 2 Kings y. 19. 14, —cxodde—W PY, 


the contrary of the two other qualities, crooked 
in ways and therefore in heart, Ps. ci. 4; Prov. 
xi. 20; xvii. 20; iv. 24, similar to a piece of 
crooked wood that cannot be bent and is not fit 
for use, perverse, contentious, morose in disposi- 
tion and behaviour. ‘Before such masters the 
false longings for liberty are most apt to break 
out: but here is just the point at which Christian 
views and principles appear in the strongest pos- 
sible contrast with merely human and natural 
ones, and at which the peculiarity of the Chris- 
tian calling, as a power of endurance, shows its 
marvellous glory.” Wiesinger. 

Ver. 19. For this is grace.—The sense of 
these words is determined partly by the following 
χάρις παρὰ Θεῷ, partly by the antithesis ποῖον yap 
κλέος. This question suggests that of our Lord, 
Lke. vi. 82. ‘For if you love them, which love 
you, what thanks have you?” ποία ὑμῖν χάρις 
ἐστί; in Matt. it reads τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε. The 
ideas of thanks, reward and praise are here con- 


joined. Here as there the reference is to thanks, 
praise, or honour before God. You have no 
praise before God, you cannot glory in your 
tribulations (cf. Rom. v. 3), if you remain sted- 
fast in troubles brought on by yourselves; but 
if, suffering wrongfully, you remain stedfast, 
you will have honour before God and secure His 
approval and good pleasure. Weiss compares 


the Hebrew Wh NY, Ξεξεὑρίσκειν χάριν ἐναντ- 


tov ϑεοῦ, Gen. vi. 8; xvili. 8; xxx. 27; cf. Lke. 
i. 80; ii. 52; Acts ii. 47. As to the sense it is 
therefore=yapiev, cf. 1 Tim. 11. ὃ; v. 4. Col. ili. 
20. The following explanation of Steiger is 
neither clear nor suited to the context. ‘‘It is 
grace indeed, even in the sight of God, to be 
able to suffer for God’s sake.” If he means: 
‘‘Grace effects and shows its power in this, or 
the power and blessing of grace are exhibited in 
this,’ παρὰ Θεῷ militates against his view. 

For consciousness of God, etc.— διὰ συνεί- 
δησιν Θεοῦ.----συνείδησις, the sharing of some know- 
ledge, from σύνοιδα, I am conscious. Many take 
Θεοῦ as Genit. obj. on account of our knowledge 
of God, of His good will and pleasure; but it 
seems more natural to interpret: ‘‘because of 
the consciousness of God, because God knows all, 
because His eye sees all and because His arm 
punishes all evil,” cf. Col. iii. 28. In this sense 
Joseph suffered innocently; he thought, ‘how 
then can I do this great wickedness and sin 
against God?” Gen. xxxix. 9. He suffered dvd 
συνείδησιν Ocov.—To take συνείδησις here in the 
sense of conscience is forbidden by the addition 
of Θεοῦ, although it often has that meaning, Jno. 
viii. 9; Acts xxiii. 1; xxiv. 16; Rom. ii. 15; ix. 
1; xiii. 5; 1 Cor. viii. 7. 10; x: 25. 28; 2 Cor. 
We sivevae Vl elms Te ide LOS sale eee lit ples 
Tit. i. 15; Heb. ix. 14; x. 22; 1 Pet. in. 16.— 
Weiss explains ;' ‘‘The consciousness of God, as 
that of Him who has ordained this subjection, 
should ever accompany and prompt us to the dis- 
charge of this duty. The idea συνείδησις is here 
too much narrowed and taken subjectively in- 
stead of objectively.” 

ὑποφέρει equivalent to the following irouéverv— 
to endure with constancy, 2 Tim. iii. 11; 1 Cor. 
x. 13, to bear up under afflictions and to carry 
them cheerfully on one’s shoulders. —Atraz, 
events causing multiform grief. 

Ver. 20. When ye be buffeted for your 
faults— suffer patiently.—dpaptarovtec καὶ 
κολαφιζόμενοι bromeveire.—The antithesis of ἀδίκως 
πάσχειν---κολαφιζόμενοι----ἴο beat with the fist (vulgo 
‘““box the ear’? ), if as malefactors and punished, 
you suffer afflictions patiently. [κολαφιζόμενοι; 


46 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


ss ns sss ne ee ee 


Bengel says: pana servorum, eaque subita.—M. ] 
The world may praise such conduct as courage and 
bravery, it will not give you glory before God.— 
Wrong: if the scourgings notwithstanding you per- 
sist in sinful courses; for the contrast is between 
merited suffering and martyr suffering. (Lach- 
mann and Tischendorf read ποῖον yap, but γὰρ is 
wanting in many MSS.). 

Ver. 21. For even hereunto were ye 
called,—namely, to do good and to endure with 
patience, ch. 111. 9, as we read, 1 Thess. iii. 3: 
“We are appointed, set thereunto,” Acts xiy. 22. 
The first reason of the endurance of wrongful 
sufferings and perseverance in well-doing was 
the favour of God; the second is the calling of 
Christians as a further inducement to which is 
mentioned the example of Christ. The words 
are primarily addressed to slaves, as Bengel ex- 
plains: this belongs to your Christian calling, 
which finds you in the condition of slaves; but 
they may be applied to all Christians, as is evi- 
dent from the adduced motive. 

Because also Christ suffered for you.— 
καὶ Χριστὸς, even Christ, the wholly Innocent One, 
has suffered. καὶ refers to ἀδίκως πάσχων [Alford 
makes καὶ apply to ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν on the ground 
that the last two words carry with them the aya- 
θοποιῶν, as explained below, v. 24.—M.].—éra- 
θεν. Huss: ‘‘Peter does not say what Christ did 
suffer, his object being to intimate that Christ 
endured for us every kind of suffering. Herein 
then we are to imitate Him, viz.: in patiently 
carrying whatever is laid upon us.” As the 
disciple is not above his master, nor the servant 
above his lord, he may not refuse to endure such 
sufferings. 

ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (Scholz and Tischendorf read ὑπὲρ 
ἡμῶν); ὑπὲρ May mean: in your stead, or for 
your benefit, or both. The last is probable, if 
reference be had not only to verses 22 and 28, 
but also to verse 24, cf. ch. iii. 18, where the vi- 
carious character of the death of Jesus is unmis- 
takably asserted. Winer remarks at p. 458 that 
ὑπὲρ sometimes touches closely upon ἀντί, because 
the agent, one acting for the benefit of another, 
in most instances becomes his substitute, ef. Gal. 
111, 18; Rom. v. 7; xiv. 15; Matt. xx. 28; Jno. 
xv. 13; x.15; vi.51. The redemptive and typ- 
ical nature of the sufferings of Christ are here 
intimately connected. Steiger justly asks: “What 
is it that makes the example of Christ obligatory 
to us, unless it be the fact that that typical suffer- 
ing was at once and primarily a suffering for us, an 
offering of Christ and a benefit, engaging us to 
serve Him?’—This passage expresses in preg- 
nant language the double idea: 1. You are obliged 
to obey Christ, because He suffered for you. 2. 
You are consequently called to innocent suffering, 
though you be guiltless, because also Christ, in 
suffering for you, suffered innocently and with 
the intent that in this respect you should imitate 
Him. 

Leaving you—steps.—iroAwuzdvw another 
form of ὑπολείπω. Bengel remarks, ‘in abitu ad 
Patrum.” —iroypaupéc, 2 Mace. ii. 29, a pattern 
to write or draw by, a copy-head such as a wri- 
ting-master would give to his pupils. This re- 
quires a steady hand and daily practice. Hence, 
pattern, copy, example. It is characteristic of 
this epistle, that it lays great stress on the pattern 


of Christ, cf. Jno. xiii. 15; Matt. xi. 29; xx. 
28 with 1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 1. 18. 

iva ἐπακολουθήσητε τοῖς ἴχνεσιν.---ἴ χνη, a foot- 
print, also the heels of shoes. The figure of a 
copyhead passes into that of a guide, whose foot- 
prints travellers along a steep, narrow and slip- 
pery path must follow up step by step. The 
footprints of His readiness to suffer, of His gen- 
tleness and humility are particularly alluded to. 
ἵνα dependent on ἔπαθεν, not on ἐκλήθητε. The 
imitation and following of Christ consists espe- 
cially in the daily taking up of the cross, Lke. 
ix. 23. [This passage is also imitated by Poly- 
carp, c. 8: Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἀνήνεγκεν ἡμῶν τὰς duap- 
τίας τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι ἐπι τὸ ξύλον, ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποί- 
ησεν, οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ - μιμηταὶ 
οὖν γενώμεθα τῆς ὑπομονῆς αὐτοῦ. . τοῦτον 
ἡμῖν τὸν ὑπογραμμὸν ἔθηκε δι’ ἑαυτοῦ. 

Tertullian de Patientia, ὁ. 3. “He Who is God, 
stooped to be born in the womb of His Mother, 
and waited patiently and grew up; and when 
gown up, was not impatient to be recognized as 
God. He was baptized by His servant, and re- 
pelled the tempter only by words. When He be- 
came a Teacher, He did not strive nor ery, nor did 
any one hear His voice in the streets. He did not 
break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax. 
He scorned no man’s company; He shunned no 
man’s table. He conversed with publicans and 
sinners. He poured out water and washed His 
disciples’ feet. He would not injure the Samaritan 
village which did not receive Him, when His disci- 
ples called fire from heaven to consume it. He 
cured the unthankful; He withdrew from those 
who plotted against Him. He had the traitor con- 
stantly in His company and did not expose him. 
And when He is betrayed and is brought to execu- 
tion, He is like a sheep which before his shearers is 
dumb, and a lamb that doth not open its mouth. He 
who, Lord of angelic Legions, did not approve the 
sword of Peter drawn in His defence, He is spit 
upon, scourged, mocked. Such long-suffering as 
His, is an example to all men, but is found in God 
alone.” —M. | 


Ver. 22. Who did no sin, ete.—This de- 
scription of the innocent and patient suffering 
of Jesus is almost a literal quotation from the 
Septuagint version of Is. 1111. 9, the word ἁμαρτίαν 
alone being substituted for ἀνομίαν. The passages 
Is. 1. 6; lili. 7, are more freely treated in vy. 23. 
The servant of God there designated is therefore 
none other than the Messiah. His perfect sin- 
lessness is even more explicitly affirmed in Heb. 
Vil, 20); 2 Cor. ν, 2]. 

εὑρίσκω not absolutely like εἶναι, but: no guile 
could be discovered in or proved from His words, 
all watching and sifting notwithstanding, and yet 
He was condemned. See Winer p. 701, ef. Jas. 
iii. 2. Bengel notices the fitness of this exhorta- 
tion to slaves, who were greatly liable to the 
temptation of deceiving, slandering and menacing 
their fellow-slaves. 


Ver. 23. Who being reviled—threatened 
not.—He fulfilled Prov. xx. 22; xxiv. 29; He 
did what David had done, 2 Sam. xvi. 10, ete. 
The strong and bitter words, which Jesus had 
sometimes to use, Matt. vii. 5; xvi. 3; xxii. 18; 
xxiii. 18. 33; xii. 34, were not the utterings of 
personal hatred, nor retorts of insults heaped up- 


CHAP. IT, 18—25. 


on Him, but necessary evidences of the truth in 
order to cast a sting into the heart of His ad- 
versaries, and if possible to save them. 

But delivered—righteously.—The second 
part of the sentence contains a climax. He even 
abstained from threatening, while He saw into 
the impending judgments. apadidov δὲ, He 
committed His cause to God, not however by in- 
voking the vengeance of God on His enemies, but 
by praying for their conversion and pardon. If 
they persisted in repelling the overtures of grace, 
He left him to the justice of God. In this sense 
He said: “1 seek not mine own glory: there is 
One that seeketh and judgeth.” Jno. viii. 50.— 
Jeremiah spoke differently in the spirit of the 
Old Testament: ‘‘ Let me see Thy vengeance upon 
them, for unto Thee have I revealed my cause.” 
Jer. xi. 20. 


To Him that judgeth righteously, other- 
wise than the anger of the injured part, and the 
violence of ungodly enemies would make it. It 
is both a great consolation and an inyitation to 
leave vengeance to Him, cf. Rom. xii. 19; 11. θ-- 
11> 1 Pet: im. 9: 2 Thess: 1. 6; Like. xvii. 7. 8; 
ix. 55. Lechler remarks, that the Apostle’s lan- 
guage was giving one the impression of coming 
in contact with an eye-witness of the arrest, of 
the trial, of the rough ill treatment and even of 
the crucifixion of the Lord. [Calvin has the fol- 
lowing: ‘‘ Qui sibi ad expetendam vindictam indul- 
gent, non judiciis officium Deo concedunt, sed quodam 
modo facere volunt suum carnificem.—M. | 


Ver. 24. Who Himself bore our sins in 
His own body on the tree.—This verse is 
connected with ὑπερ ὑμῶν of v. 21, and defines it 
more particularly; it also brings the antithesis 
to v. 22 toa climax. Not only had He no sin, or 
did not sin Himself, but He bore our sins, etc.— 
ἀνήνεγκεν. The exegesis is determined by Is. lili. 
which evidently was before the Apostle’s mind. 


In that chapter occur the words bop. Nino. 


φέρειν. The LXX. render: τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς 
ἰάθημεν; iny. 12, καὶ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτίας πολλῶν ἀνήνεγ- 
κεν; in y. 10, ‘‘When His soul shall make an 
offering for sin.” All exegetical attempts to ex- 
plain away the idea of substitution and the 
system of sacrifice closely connected with it, are 
altogether futile. As in the Old Testament, the 
expressions, ‘‘to carry one’s sin,” or, ““ἴο bear 
one’s iniquity,” are equivalent to ‘‘suffer the 
punishment and guilt of one’s sin,” Ley. xx. 17. 
19; xxiv. 15; Ezek. xxili. 35, so ‘‘to carry ano- 
ther’s sin,” denotes ‘‘to suffer the punishment 
and guilt of another,” or ‘‘to suffer vicariously,” 
Lev. iii. 19. 17; Numb, xiv. 33; Lam. vy. 7; Ezek. 
xviii. 19. 20. Can this be done in any other way 
than by the imputation of the guilt and sin of 
others, as was the case in the sin and guilt-offer- 
ings? Weiss is quite arbitrary in persisting to 
exclude the idea of sacrifice from Is. liii., for v. 
10 clearly refers to it. From a Jewish point of 
view such a separation of the doctrine of substi- 
tution from the idea of sacrifice is simply impos- 
sible, cf. Jno. i. 29; Lev. xvi. 21. 22.—The juxta- 
position of ἡμῶν and αὐτός both here and in Is. 
lili. is not insignificant, but gives prominence to 
the idea of substitution. Calvin says: ‘As under 
the law the sinner, in order to become free from 


47 


sin, offered a sacrifice in his stead, so Christ took 
upon Himself the curse which we have merited 
by our sins in order to expiate it before God.” 
Caloy. ‘‘The cross of Christ was the lofty altar 
to which, when He was about to offer Himself, 
He ascended laden with our sins.” 

ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ FbAov—to carry up to the tree of 
the cross and thus to carry away and blot out, 
ef. Jas. ii. 21; Heb. ix. 28. The expression 
“tree” for ‘‘cross” is by no means undesigned, 
but selected as in Acts νυ. 80; x. 39, with refer- 
ence to Deut. xxi. 23, ef. Gal. ili. 18, where it is 
said of him that is hanged on a tree, ‘‘he is ac- 
cursed of God.” 

τὰς ἁμαρτίας not sin-offerings or offerings for 
our sins, a rendering which is inadmissible on 
grammatical grounds, but the guilt and punish- 
ment of our sins;—these He took upon Himself 
and expiated them, cf. Col. ii. 14; Gal. ii. 13; 
2 Cor. v. 21. 

In His own body, cf. Eph. ii. 15. This expres- 
sion is far from singular in connection with the 
fact that Christ bore the punishment of sin also 
in His holy soul, provided we start from the idea 
of sacrifice and assume that Peter was comparing 
the body of Christ with the body of the slain 
victim. Gerhard says: ‘‘The body is mentioned 
in particular, because it was visibly suspended 
from the cross, and because His bodily sufferings 
were more immediately perceptible by the 
senses.” Weiss tries to find a reference to the 
words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper— 
but this seems to be rather far-fetched. How 
this carrying of the punishment of man’s sin— 
which goes far beyond a compassionating enter- 
ing into the feelings of our sinful misery—was 
possible must ever remain a wonderful mystery, 
on which the Petrine and Johannean doctrine of 
Christ as the real and original Head of mankind, 
sheds only a feeble light. 

That having died to sins, we should live 
to the righteousness of Him.—Calov. ‘‘Pe- 
ter combines the two benefits of the death of 
Christ, lst, by it our sins are expiated, and 2d, 
in virtue of it sin is killed in us. We add, that 
the combination gives prominence to holiness as 
the end and aim of the atonement. 

ἀπογίνομαι---ἀποθνήσκω, cf. Rom. vi. 2. Bengel 
remarks: “γενέσθαι τινὸς means to become some- 
body’s slave, ἀπό denotes removal. The body of 
Christ was removed, taken away from that tree, 
up to which He had carried our sins; thus we 
should remove ourselves from sin, become free 
from it.” This explanation is more acute than 
satisfactory. The negative, dying unto sin,must 
go hand in hand with the positive. The connec- 
tion of holiness and renovation with the death 
of Jesus is not indicated here, but may be sup- 
plied by recollecting that the gift of the Holy 
Ghost and the power of faith were acquired by 
the death of Jesus. Thereby the vital strength 
of sin is broken and the desire of righteousness 
planted in the soul.—Cjv τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ---ἴο live in 
the service of righteousness, in keeping the com- 
mandments of God and Christ instead of the 
former service of sin. Bengel: ‘The whole of 
righteousness is one, sin manifold.” 

By whose stripe ye were healed.— Moo, 
a wound like that inflicted on slaves by scourging, 
a stripe or rather the weal left by astripe. The 


48 


Singular is used here as in Is. liii.; the sacred 
body of Jesus was so tortured that it was, as it 
were, only one wound or stripe.—ov τῷ μώλωπι 
αὐτοῦ. (Lachmann and Griesbach omit αὐτοῦ; 
Tischendorf retains it as the more difficult read- 
ing inhis last edition). More emphatic than the 
relative by itself; supply τούτου before it.—Iaéyre. 
The apostle passes from the first person to the 
second, resuming his direct address to Christian 
slaves. Soalso at y. 25; the whole section from 
νυ. 18-25 is addressed to them. μώλωψ and ἰᾶσθαι 
suggest the secondary thought: You have to en- 
dure no kind of sufferings and wounds, but Christ, 
your Lord, endured them also; your Master ex- 
acts not more from you than He has borne Him- 
self; He bears all in your stead in order to save 
you; how much more ought you, who are sinful, 
quietly and patiently to endure suffering ?—But 
how shall we solve the prophetical and apostoli- 
cal paradox, that Christ’s stripe is our healing? 
Healing is here primarily not to be understood as 
asinner’s entire restoration to the image of God, 
else the preceding exhortation would not have 
been necessary, but as designating the healing 
of the stings of conscience, caused by sin; but 
this involves of course the principle that entire 
healing is rendered possible. ‘‘Sins, committed 
against our conscience, hurt the soul and leave 
scars which ever and anon open afresh, sting the 
conscience and hurt the soul.” Steinhofer.— 
These wounds of your soul were healed when by 
faith in the atoning death of Jesus you received 
forgiveness. He suffered the smiters to draw 
long furrows on His back, Ps. exxix. ὃ, to wound 
His head and face, His hands and feet, and to 
pierce His heart that in our stead, as the Head 
for the members, He might make atonement.” — 
“Thou didst suffer stripe and weal, 
Treatment full of shame and pain, 


That my plague thou mightest heal, 
And my peace forever gain.” 


[German Hymn,— 


Du hast lassen Wunden schlagen, 
Dich erbarmlich richten zu, 

Um zu heilen meine Plagen, 
Um zu setzen mich in Ruh!—M.] 

Tauler:—‘‘He had to die that we might live: 
He was afflicted that we might rejoice; He was 
wounded that we might be healed: He shed His 
blood that we might be cleansed: the blood of the 
Physician was shed and made the patient’s re- 
medy,”’ 

Ver. 25. For ye were straying like sheep. 
—The Apostle adds how and from what state they 
came to this healing. For ye were straying like 
sheep. Asheep isa stupid animal: so is the sin- 
ner, repelling salvation and straying in the ways 
of corruption. Sheep, as Aristotle observes, are 
subject toasmany diseasesasman. Stray sheep, 
separated from the shepherd and the flock, lack 
food and care, are exposed to many dangers, may 
become a prey to the wolf or fall into some abyss. 
The expression is taken from Is. liii., and the 
figure is of frequent occurrence in the Old Tes- 
tament, Numb. xxvii. 17; 1 Kings xxii. 17; Ps. 
exix. 176; Ezek. xxxiv. 5. 11, and in the New, 
Luke xv. 4, οἷο; Jno. x. 15 etc.; Matt. ix. 36. 
It may have been particularly appropriate to the 
ease of slaves of the dispersion who often changed 
masters and their place of domicile. Straying 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


and sickness are often conjoined. ‘The figure 
of stray sheep alludes to original union with God 
and represents straying as alienation from God 
in consequence of βίη." Jno. x. 12. Wiesinger. 

But ye are now brought back (from the 
wilderness of sin, error and death) to the Shep- 
herd and Bishop of your souls.—ézeorpadgyre, 
ye have been converted and have suffered your- 
selves to be converted. By faith you have laid 
hold of the atonement made for all and have re- 
turned from your wanderings. Christ is the arch- 
Shepherd, the true, the good Shepherd, promised 
already in the Old Testament, Is. xl. 11; Ezek. 
XxXxiv. 28; xxxvil. 24; Ps. xxiii. 1; cf. Jno. x. 
11; Heb. xiii. 20; 1 Pet. v. 4. He even gives 
His life for the sheep, Jno. x. 12. The Apostle 
turns to that side of the pastoral relation of Christ 
which exhibits Him as the Bishop and Guardian 
of souls.—ézicxoroc is used of God in the LXX. 
version of Job xx. 29; the phrase is however 
more probably taken from Ezek. xxxiv. 11. 12, 
where we read: ‘‘For thus saith the Lord God, 
Behold I, even I, will both search my sheep and 
seek them out (émoxéyoua). As a shepherd 
seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among 
his sheep that are scattered, so will I seek out my 
sheep, and will deliver them out of all places 
where they have been scattered in the cloudy and 
dark day.” He is ever careful of the salvation 
of His sheep and seeks to protect them from de- 
struction. He is the Shepherd and Guardian of 
souls.—yuyov not without special significance as 
it relates to slaves, and servants who are so often 
treated, as if they had no immortal soul, and who 
may therefore so much the more readily forget 
that they have a soul which they may lose, and 
that with the soul lost, all else is lost. 

ὶ 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The Divine origin of Christianity may also 
be demonstrated by the fact that it enters into 
and hallows every relation of life and descends to 
the most degraded of men and to the lowest con- 
ditions of society. 

2. The glory of the Christian vocation is pecu- 
liarly manifested by endurance of wrong and in-’ 
defatigable well-doing under it. 

3. Plato anticipated the ideal of such a right- 
eous man in the following passage of his second 
book on the State: ‘Without doing any wrong, 
he must have the greatest appearance of unright- 
eousness in order to be thoroughly approved in 
righteousness, since even slander and its conse- 
quences cannot move him, and although all his 
life-long considered unrighteous, he is yet right- 
eous. The righteous, thus minded will be bound, 
scourged, tortured, blinded in both eyes and 
finally, having endured every possible evil, he 
will be hung.” Plato’s ideal and conception find 
their strongest fulfilment and reality in Chris- 
tianity. 

4, The exhortation that we should copy in our- 
selves, the pattern which Christ has left us in His 
life and death is enclosed forwards and backwards, 
ver. 21 and ν. 24, by the recollection that He was 
erucified for us. This is the impelling motive 
which at once enables us to imitate Christ and to 
do it cheerfully. 


CHAP. II. 18-25. 


5. The vicarious sacrificial death of Jesus, 
based on Is. liii., is here affirmed with so much 
clearness that even rationalistic adversaries are 
unable to resist it, cf. Wegschneider, Jnstit. Ὁ. 
407. 6th ed. How we are healed by the wounds 
of Jesus, is a mystery which reason cannot fully 
solve, and to which we have to submit by faith 
in the clear testimony of Holy Writ. ‘Jesus, 
who by His blood has effected our reconciliation, 
is Himself the Physician who heals our souls.” 
Even Dr. Baur is constrained to admit that the 
idea of substitution cannot be denied in such pas- 
sages of the New Testament as Rom. iv. 25; Gal. 
i. 4; Rom. viii. 83; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 2Cor. v. 19, that 
the preposition ὑπέρ denotes both the idea of sub- 
stitution and what takes place for the benefit of 
man; that these two points are passing the one 
into the other, so as to interpenetrate each other, 
but that the latter is decidedly predominant; that 
according to the Apostle’s doctrine the justice of 
God had to be satisfied by an actual atonement 
for the punishment of sin; that viewing the death 
of Jesus from the stand-point of Divine justice, is 
only the outer side of the event and its merely 
judicial aspect, but that the inmost ground of the 
Divinely-made institution is the grace of God, 
Rom. iii. 24, 2 Cor. v. 19, and a point so much 
more extensive than the other as to constrain us 
to regard only as an emanation of Divine grace 
whatever Divine justice may claim of the death of 
Jesus; that it was grace that God would not al- 
low men to be punished in their own persons, but 
in their substitute. See Baur, Lehrbegriff des Ap. 
Paulus p. 541. This is certainly a wonderful tes- 
timony from the lips of an unbeliever. 

6. The medicine has been prepared by His 
wounds, the balsam has been cleared under the 
press of the cross.—‘‘The blood of Jesus is the 
most precious balsam with which Jesus washes 
and heals our wounds, as the good Samaritan 
poured oil and wine in the wounds of the bleed- 
ing and half-dead man to lessen their smart and 
tohealthem. There is vital strength in this crim- 
son oil whereby we are fully healed.” Steinhofer, 
Evang. Glaubensgrund, Ὁ. 434. 

7. Observe the important distinction between 
the atonement as the objective act of God in Christ 
in virtue of which salvation has been acquired for 
and is offered to sinners, and the subjective ap- 
propriation of salvation by means of conversion. 
The words of Paul: ‘‘ Ye are washed, ye are sanc- 
tified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord 
Jesus and by the Spirit of our God,” 1 Cor. vi. 
11, apply only to those who have sought Christ 
in penitence and faith and laid hold of His merits. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


How may the much-lamented difficulties re- 
lating to domestics be remedied? 1. By the re- 
turn of the fear of God into the houses and hearts 
of men; 2. By masters and servants entering upon 
the imitation of Christ.—The secret of partaking 
more and more of the grace of God.—The Chris- 
tian call, 1. To a state of grace, in order to be 
and live init; 2. To suffer innocently and pa- 
tiently; ὃ. To persevere in well-doing. — The 
Christian’s consolation in innocent suffering.— 
Righteousness of life must flow from righteous- 


49 


ness by faith.—The sufferings of Christ for us 
and before us.—The power of Christ’s example. 
—The great change in conversion.—Man a stray 
sheep, while excluded from the calling of God in 
Christ, 

STarRKE:—God ordains, that one should rule 
and another serye.—Bad masters are for the trial 
and perhaps also for the chastisement of servants. 
—Masters are often decried as whimsical for de- 
siring propriety and right in things spiritual and 
temporal. Servants, be ashamed and do not slan- 
der your godly masters, but learn to be wise and 
to do all things right after the will of God and 
their mind —Many masters may deal ill with 
their people, but if they endure wrong patiently, 
attend to their service in the fear of God, pray 
diligently for their masters, they are God’s peo- 
ple and God will be their helper and reward, 
Gen. xxxi. 12.—As it is the shame of servants to 
be punished for ill-doing, so it is their veritable 
honour and glory before God and man if they 
endure wrong innocently and patiently, ch. iv. 
15. 16.—Christians are not called to voluptuous- 
ness and good days but to the cross, ch. 11. 21.— 
We should often look at ourselves in the suffer- 
ings of Christ, as if they were a mirror, that we 
may be glorified into the same image, Heb. xii. 
3.—Christ is our Gift and Pattern, our Mediator 
and Head, our Shepherd and Light. What is our 
duty? To believe and to obey (follow) Jno. viii. 
12.—The words, the ways and the works of Christ 
are, as it were, living letters and footprints for 
us to copy and follow, Heb. xii. 6.—If you have 
a just cause and yet are oppressed, be still and 
persevere, God will maintain your cause, Ps. xciv. 
15.—Away with foolish sacrifices for the living 
or the dead! The one sacrifice of our High- 
priest Jesus Christ on the cross is sufficient for 
the reconciliation of the whole world, Heb. ix. 
12. 26; x. 11. 12._The exaltation and glory of 
Christians blossom forth from the cross.—Sin was 
sacrificed and slain by Christ that it should also 
be dead in us. Where it lives, the virtue of the 
death of Christ is as yet unfelt, Rom. vi. 6.—Sin 
is like a maze: whoso enters the same cannot 
easily find his way out.—Whoso remains in the 
wilderness out of Christ (extra) must at last fall 
into the abyss of hell and eternally despair, Acts 
iv. 12; Ps. cxix. 176. 

AuGUSTINE:—‘‘ We must not cease to hope for 
the wicked, but rather pray for them the more 
diligently, that they may become good, because 
the number of saints has at all times been in- 
creased by the number of the ungodly. Those 
who are goats to-day, may be sheep to-morrow, 
those who are weeds to-day, to-morrow may be 
wheat.” 

Kaprr :—What is necessary in conversion? 1. 
That we should be healed by the wounds of Jesus. 
2. That we should die to sin and live to right- 
eousness. 

[ Lercuron :—Vnr. 18. It isathing of much con- 
cernment, the right ordering of families; for all 
other societies, civil and religious are made up of 
these. Villages and cities and churches and com- 
monwealths and kingdoms, are but a collection 
of families: and therefore such as these are, for 
the most part, such must the whole societies pre- 
dominantly be. One particular house is but a 
very small part of a kingdom, yet the wickedness 


50 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


and lewdness of that house, be it but thémeanest 
in it, as of servants one or more; and though it 
seem but a small thing, yet goes in to make up 
that heap of sin that provokes the wrath of God 
and draws on public calamity.—Servants. 1. 
Their duty (be subject); 2. Its extent (to the fro- 
ward); 5. Its principle (for conscience toward 
God).—The eagle may fly high and yet have its 
eye down upon some carrion on earth; eyen so a 
man may be standing on the earth and on some 
low part of it, and yet have his eye upon heaven 
and be contemplating it. That which one man 
cannot at all see in another, is the very thing that 
is most considerable in their action, namely, the 
principle whence they flow and the end to which 
they tend. Thisis the form and life of actions, that 
by which they are earthly or heavenly. Whatso- 
ever be the matter of them, the spiritual mind hath 
that alchymy indeed, of burning base metals unto 
gold, earthly employments into heavenly.—V. 21. 
The particular things that Christians are here 
said to be called to, are suffering, as their lot, and 
patience, as their duty, even under the most un- 
just and undeserved sufferings.—He that aims 
high, shoots the higher for it, though he shoot 
not so high as he aims. This is that which en- 
nobles the spirit of a Christian, the propounding 
of this our high pattern, the example of Jesus 
Christ.—V. 24. The eye of a godly man is not fixed 
on the false sparkling of the world’s pomp, honour 
and wealth. It is dead to them, being quite daz- 
zled with a greater beauty. The grass looks fine 
in the morning, when it is set with those liquid 
pearls, the drops of dew that shine upon it; but 
if you can look but a little while on the body of 
the sun, and then look down again, the eye is as 
it were dead; itis not that faint shining on the 
earth that it thought so gay before: and as the 
eye is blinded and dies to it, so within a few 
hours that gayety quite vanishes and dies itself. 
—Faith looks so steadfastly on its suffering Sa- 
viour, that, as they say (Jntellectus fit illud quod 
intelligit), it makes the soul like Him, assimilates 
and conforms it to His death, as the Apostle 
speaks. That which Papists fabulously say of 
some of their saints, that they received the im- 
pression of the wounds of Christ in their body, 
is true in a spiritual sense of the soul of every 
one that is indeed a saint and a believer; it takes 
the very print of His death by beholding Him and 
dies to sin, and then takes that of His rising again, 
and lives to righteousness ; as it applies it to Justify, 
80 to mortify, drawing virtue from it. Thus said 
one, “Christ aimed at this in all those sufferings 
that with so much love He went through; and 
shall I disappoint Him and not serve His end ?”— 
M. 
[On the duties of Christian servants see Br. 
FLEETWOOD’s ‘‘Sermons on relative duties.” —M. ] 

[ΤΟΚΤῚΝ :--- Ἐπ. 18. ‘* The law of nature knows 
no such thing as slavery, for by nature all men 
are free and equal; but by the civil laws, and by 
the practice of nations, it was established, and 
still continues among those who know not the 
Gospel; and the more is the shame and the pity, 
it is to be found in some places where Christian- 
ity is professed. The religion of Christ, when 
it first made its progress in the world, left the 
civil laws of nations, in a great measure, as it 
found them, lest by altering or repealing them, it 


should bring confusion and disturbance into hu- 
man society; but, as by its own genius and ten- 
dency, it leads men gently back to the precepts 
of nature and equity, to kindness and to mercy, 
it put an end by degrees, in most civilized na- 
tions, to that excessive distance and difference 
between masters and slaves, which owed its ori- 
gin to outrage and war, to violence and calam- 
ity; so that in Christian countries the service 
which is performed is usually, as it ought to 
be, voluntary and by agreement. But what the 
writers of the New Testament have said concern- 
ing slaves, holds true concerning hired servants 
and all those who are employed in other denom- 
inations under a master, that they discharge their 
office modestly, diligently and willingly, and act 
with faithfulness and integrity in every thing 
that is committed to them.”’—M. } 
[Macknicur:—‘‘In this verse the Apostle es- 
tablishes one of the most noble and important 
principles of morality, namely, that our obliga- 
tion to relative duties does not depend, either on 
the character of the persons to whom they are to 
be performed, or on their performance of the 
duties which they owe to us, but on the unalterable 
relations of things established by God.”—M.] 

[ΒΡ. Horne:—Ve_nr. 21. ‘Our Lord was Sboth 
a sacrifice for sin, and also an example of godly 
life.’ (Collect for second Sunday after Easter.) 
By His sacrifice He procured us grace to follow 
His example, which otherwise would have been 
proposed to us in yain; by His example He 
showed us how to make a right use of that grace, 
which, unless we do, it is given in vain. So that 
if he who regards Him as an example, and not 
as a Redeemer, will be lost, because he cannot 
follow Him; he who takes Him for a Redeemer, 
and not for an example, will be lost, because he 
does not follow Him, since redemption was in 
order to holiness; and although it be most cer- 
tain that without Christ no man can attain unto 
holiness, yet itis no less certain that ‘without 
holiness no man shall see the Lord.” He only is 
fully and effectually redeemed, and has evidence 
to assure him of it, who bears stamped on his 
soul the image and superscription of his Saviour.” 
—M. 

ΡΝ ΞΤΆΑΝΗΟΡΕ :—Vv. 24. 25. «.Α considera- 
tion of the purpose for which our Saviour suf- 
fered should be a matter of great consolation to 
us, when we meditate upon His sufferings, and 
cause us to mingle tears of joy with those of 
grief. The latter we should be insensible not to 
pay to the excruciating agonies of our beloved 
Master; the former we should be unthankful and 
cruel to ourselves not to give tothe happy effects 
of the misery which He so graciously conde- 
scended to undergo for us. But, to make both 
effectual, let us, inflamed with zeal and gratitude 
and love unfeigned, endeavour for our own par- 
ticular, and most devoutly beg for the rest, as 
the best of Churches teaches us, that the innu- 
merable benefits of this precious blood-shedding 
may have their full extent and free course; that 
‘we and the whole Church of Christ may re- 
ceive remission of sins”’ and all the other blessed 
effects of His passion; that He, who ‘hath mace 
a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation 
and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world,” 
would cause His way to be known, and show His 


CHAPTER TII. 1-7. 


51 


saving health to the yet dark and unbelieving 
nations; and that all, who do already know it, 
may walk worthy of their knowledge and of the 
high vocation wherewith they are called. And 
O! that the death tasted by our Redeemer for 


every man may be effectual to the saving of 
every man! Even so, blessed Jesus, ‘‘by thine 
agony and bloody sweat, by thy cross and pas- 
sion, good Lord, deliver us.””—M. ] 


‘ CHAPTER III. 1-7. . 


ANALYsIs :—Exhortations addressed to married people, enjoining duties affecting their mutual relations, from a Christian 
point of view. 


1 Likewise, ye wives,’ be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if? any obey not 
the word,’ they also may without the word‘ be won by the conversation of the wives; 


While they behold® your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 


W hose? adorning 
Θ᾽ 


let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair,’ and of wearing of gold,’ or 


ID σ᾽ fF 


of putting on of apparel; But /e¢ ἐξέ be the hidden man of the heart, in that which 
is not corruptible,” even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit," which isin the 
sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time! the holy 
women also, who trusted! in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their 
own husbands: Hven™ as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters 
ye are,’ as long as’ ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” 1° Likewise, 


ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, 
as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your 


prayers be not hindered. 


Verse 1. [1 Cod., A. B. and Sinait. omit at. 


ὁμοίως goes back to ch. ii. 18 —M.] 


2«at el, evenif; the force of καὶ εἴ is, “put the worst case, even if your husbands are positively disobe- 


dient to the word, your duty is clear.”—M.] 
[Ξκερδηθήσονται; anotherreading ἰΒ κερδηθήσωνται. 


Rec. Cod. Sin.—On ἵν α with ἃ Fut. Indic. see 


Winer, 6th ed. p. 258, and cf. Rev. xxii. 14; translate “that they shall be won.”—M.] 
[ἄνευ λόγου, without word. Translate the whole verse: “Likewise, wives, be in subjection to your own 
husbands, that even if any obey not the word, they shall be won without word by means of the con- 


versation of the wives.”—M.] 


ὃ The German renders “ your conversation chaste in fear.”—M.] 


Verse 3. 


Verse 2. : ἐποπτεύσαντες--Παγΐηρ beheld, when they behold.—M.] 


7 &v=of whom, 7. e., your adornment.—M. | 


[Ξἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶ v=—braiding of hair, cf. 1 Tim. ii. 9—M.] 
[®wep.8éoems—putting round (the head, the arm, the ankle or the finger). Translate the verse: “Your 
adornment let it be not the outward of braiding of hair, and putting round golden ornaments, or of put- 


ting on of dresses.”—M.] 


Verse4. [9 ἐν τῷ ah0d4p7w=in the incorruptible ornament of —M.] 
Ἢ τοῦ πρᾳέος καὶ ἡσυχίου mvevmartos=the meek and quiet spirit, which, ete.—M.] 


Verse 5. [12 ro+é xai=formerly also.—M.] 


1 ἐλπέίζουσαι (Part. of Imperfect, according to Winer, 6th ed., p. 305)—who hoped.—M. ] 
Verse 6. [14 No necessity for “even”; the Greek has simply ὦ s.—M.] 
Wis ἐγενήθητε TéExva=of whom ye have become children.—M.] 
ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι states the condition on which they have become Sarah’s children; render, therefore, 


“if,” instead of “as long as.”—M.] 


Π᾿ καὶ μὴ φοβοὕὔμεναι μηδεμίαν πτόησιν--ἃπᾶ are not afraid of any sudden fear. πτόησιν-: 


fear from without, some external cause of terror. 


Critical.”—M.] 


See additional observations under “ Exegetical and 


Verse 7. [18 This verse needs entire recasting; the E. V.is involved. We translate, closely following the original: 
“Ye husbands, in like manner, (refers to πάντας τιμήσατε, Ch. ii. 17) dwelling, according to know- 
ledge with the feminine, as with the weaker vessel, giving honour as to those who are also fellow-in- 
heritors of the grace of life, in order that your prayers be not hindered. So Alford. The Cod. Sin. 
reads συνομιλοῦντες, “companying with,” for συνοικοῦντες, and supplies ποικίλης, Man- 


ifold before x dpuTos.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 1. Likewise, wives, be in subjec- 
tion to your own husbands.—The Apostle 
now passes on to conjugal duty, intending to 
make ὁμοίως convey the idea that the obedience of 
wives to their husbands is as sacred an obliga- 
tion as that of servants to their masters. What 
may be the reason of his not noticing the duties 
of believing masters to their servants, to which 
Paul, uiph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 25, has special ref- 

4 


erence? Τὸ 15. probably to be found in the eir- 
cumstance that in the Churches to which he 
wrote this Epistle were only few believing mas- 
ters, or none that had slaves. Estius sees in this 
circumstance an additional reason that this Epis- 
tle was addressed to the Jews of the dispersion, 
among whom were many slaves, but few masters. 
—ai γυναῖκες, address as in ch. ii. 18; iii. 7; 
Eph. y. 22. 28.---ὠΟποτασσόμεναι, Participle, as ch 
ii. 18, governed by the principle, ch. ii. 17, 
“Fear God,” etc., cf. Col. iii. 18; Gen. iii. 16. 


52 


To your own husbands.—Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 
85; vii. 2; Eph. v. 21. 25. 28. 88. ἴδιος is not 
without emphasis; it adverts to an antithesis; it 
is to remind the wives, as Calvin rightly observes, 
of the duty of chastity, and warn them of all 
suspicious obedience to strange men. Believing 
wives married to unbelieving or pagan husbands 
might, even apart from the then prevalent de- 
moralization of the conjugal estate, be tempted 
to seek close intercourse with enlightened men, 
strong in faith, and to be led by them; such a 
course might easily shake the confidence of the 
conjugal relation; hence the Apostle’s delicate 
caution. The Apostle takes it for granted that 
the greater number of husbands of believing 
wives are also believers in the publicly preached 
word; but even if (καὶ ei) this should not be the 
case, the wives must persevere in self-sacrificing, 
self-denying obedience, and thus seek to win 
their husbands, not by talking and arguing, but 
by the powerful preaching of a quiet conversa- 
tion.—dvev λόγου, without open preaching and 
peculiar arts of speech on the part of the wives. 
--διὰ τῆς ἀναστροφῆς, by means of their behaviour 
and obedience; this is their principal task.— 
κερδηϑήσωνται, cf. 1 Cor. ix. 19-22; vii.17. To 
gain for Christ, for the Gospel, for the kingdom 
of heaven, for themselves=odfew. Caloy re- 
marks that the expression alludes to the great 
value of the soul, and to the holy joy in their 
conversion. The greatest gain is that of the 
converted themselves, Phil. iii. 8. [Leighton 
observes: ‘A soul converted is gained to itself, 
gained to the pastor, or friend, or wife, or hus- 
band who sought it, and gained to Jesus Christ: 
added to His treasury, who thought not His own 
precious blood too dear to lay out for this gain.” 
—M.]—Grotius cites the language of the heathen 
orator Libanius, which shows how primitive 
Christian wives followed these exhortations. He 
exclaims: ‘‘What wives have these Christians!” 

Ver. 2. When they behold your conver- 
sation, chaste in fear.—érorretaavrec, ef. ch. 
ii. 12, an insight flowing from close observation. 
—riv ἐν φόβῳ dyvfv.—The allusion is probably 
(with reference to ch. ii. 17) to the fear of God, 
not to the fear of the husband, as in Eph. v. 33. 
—dyviv not—chaste in its restricted sense, but 
because of its close connection with φόβῳ and 
with the sequel, denotes chaste in a wider sense, 
=pure, holy, ef. Jas. iii. 17.—So Calov, not only 
with reference to conjugal fidelity and cleanness 
of the body. 

Ver. 3. Youradornment let it not be the 
outward (adornment) of braiding the hair, 
and putting round golden ornaments, or 
of putting on of dresses.—This verse is 
closely connected with the foregoing. This holy 
conversation in the fear of God is described first 
negatively: ‘‘In contrast with the means used by 
wordly-minded women to attach their husbands, 
the Apostle specifies the means whereby a Chris- 
tian wife may hope to win even a resisting hus- 
band.”—oy ἔστω se. ὁ κόσμος, ef. 1 Tim. ii. 9.— 
The Genitives are those of nearer definition, and 
describe the act of adorning, not the objects of 
adornment.—éu7Aoxh, the artificial braiding of 
hair; female vanity is inexhaustible in the in- 
vention of new styles and fashions. Calov cites 
ἃ passage from Jerome’s Epistle to Demetrius, 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


in which he adverts to this subject, and quotes 
Cyprian’s sharp censure of women on this score. 
The views, which even the more serious heathen 
held concerning such trifles, have been collected 
by Steiger from Plato, Sophocles and Plutarch. 
--ῷᾧΉ ἐνδύσεως ivatiov.—Peter, of course, adverts 
simply to the costliness of dresses. [But does not 
ἐνδύσεως allude rather to putting them on in an 
unbecoming and indecent manner? Adford says 
that ‘within the limits of propriety and decorum, 
the common usage isthe rule.’ True, but where 
are those limits? Are they observed in the ‘full 
dress’ of the best society of either hemisphere? 
Is ‘full dress’ not a misnomer, and ought not our 
Christian matrons to use their influence in hay- 
ing full dress made more dress ?—-M.] Calov:— 
“Peter forbids not any and every adornment, 
but a modest and seemly adorning of the body, 
conformably to their several stations, is allowed,” 
ef. 1 Cor. xii. 23. 

Ver. 4. But let it be the hidden man of the 
heart—price.—xpumro¢ ἄνθρωπος = ἔσω ἄνθρωπος, 
Rom. vii. 22; 2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii. 16, This 
hidden man is not, as Steiger holds, = καρδία, but 
that which the Spirit of God forms and develops 
in the secret workshop of the heart, namely, the 
new way of thinking, feeling and willing, the new 
spiritual life, the new nature, the inmost kernel 
of man’s religion, in as far as he has within him 
something flowing from the life of Jesus. [In 
other words the inner man is the Christian, the 
regenerated, daily-renewed man, adorned with 
the beauty of holiness with his (heart) affections 
centred in God.—M. ].—év τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ. Contrast- 
ed with those perishable, worthless trifles, v. 3. 
A neuter adjective is used for an abstract noun 
(v. Winer, p. 266). Beza: = sinceritas, incorrup- 


tio. mpaic— ἊΨ mild, gentle, meek, Matt. xxi. 


5; 1 Cor. xiii. 4, οἷο: Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12; 
Mit. xi. 29; Jas. i. 20; iii. 18; 1 Cor. iv. 21; Gal. 
vi. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 24. The contrary of self-will, 
pride, presumption, obstinacy, hardness, anger 
and envy.—7jovyiov, calm, tranquil, without pas- 
sionate excitement. Bengel:—mansuetus, gui non 
turbat, tranquillus, qui turbas aliorum placide fert.— 
πνεύματος relates not to the Holy Spirit, but to 
the spiritual life, infused into believers by the 
Holy Ghost.—é éo7tv may be connected either with 
πνεύματος or with ἀφθάρτῳ. Bengel connects it 
with the latter, as being the principal subject, 
[but ‘‘the meek and quiet spirit”? seems to be the 
main thing desired.—M. 7.----πολυτελῆς Ξε- πολύτιμος 
ch. i. 19.—[ef. Mk. xiv. 8; 1 Tim. ii. 9; Pro. i. 
13.—M. 7.---ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ““ coram Deo, qui in- 
terna, non externa, spectat, cui placere curant pi.” 
Bengel. 

Ver. 5. For after this manner formerly 
also the holy women, who hoped in God, 
adorned themselves, etc.—oirw refers to what 
immediately precedes. The proof of it [the meek 
and quiet spirit—M.] is their obedience.—aycac 
γυναῖκες, Luke i. 70; Acts iii. 21; Eph. iii. 5; 2 
Pet. i. 21; those women of blessed memory and 
singled out in the history of salvation; their per- 
sonality is defined by their hope in God. If God 
is allin all in a man’s heart, it has renounced 
the idol ‘vanity’ and expelled passionate excite- 
ment, cf. 1 Tim. y. 5. Tertullian :—‘ Be clothed 
with the silk of honesty, the byssus of holiness 


CHAPTER III. 1-7. 


53 


and the purple of chastity: thus adorned, God 
will be your friend.” Bengel:—‘‘vera sanctitas, 
spes in Deum: est hoc epitheton pars subjecti.” 

Ver. 6. As Sarah obeyed Abraham, call- 
ing him Lord.—This obedience is illustrated 
by the example of Sarah, whom the Rabbis also 
were wont to set up asa pattern. She showed 
her obedience first in leaving with her husband 
the land of her nativity in reliance upon the pro- 
mises of God, secondly in regarding Abraham as 
her Lord and calling him so, Gen. xviii. 12, not- 
withstanding they were both descended from a 
common earthly parent, Gen. xx. 12.—imfKovev 
denotes the continuance of her obedience, which 
was rewarded by Abraham in his turn obeying 
her, Gen. xvi. 2; xxi. 12.—Grotius remarks that 
when the corruption of morals had become gene- 
ral at Rome, wives were called mistresses [of 
course in a good sense.—M. ] 

Of whom ye have become children.—7¢ 
ἐγενήθητε τέκνα. This is one of the Apostle’s fre- 
quent allusions to Isaiah; cf. ch. li. 1.2. ‘Look 
upon the rock whence ye are hewn (Abraham) 
and to the hole of the pit (or well) whence ye are 
digged (Sarah).” Sarah is here mentioned as 
the first mother of the people of Israel.—It is not 
ἐστὲ but ἐγενήθητε, because the expression ‘chil- 
dren of Sarah’ has not only a carnal but also a 
spiritual import. Steiger argues from this pas- 
sage that the Apostle was addressing Gentile 
Christians as he would hardly have said to Jew- 
esses, ‘‘ye have become Sarah’s children”? with- 
out adding some such explanation as this; ‘“‘You 
have now become Sarah’s children indeed or after 
a spiritual manner ;” but the opposite conclusion 
seems more in place. Did our Lord make such a 
qualification when He said to Zaccheus, the Jewish 
publican-in-chief, “ΗΘ also is a son of Abra- 
ham”? Luke xix. 9. Did He do it in the case 
of the infirm woman of whom He said that she 
was a daughter of Abraham? Lke. xiii. 16; Jno. 
viii. 39. Kven John the Baptist destroyed the de- 
lusion that those are Abraham’s children who are 
descended from him after the flesh, Matt. iii. 9. 
Believing Jewesses would have no difficulty in 
understanding what was meant, while to Chris- 
tian Gentile women it would hardly have been 
equally intelligible and applicable. Weiss re- 
marks, ‘To be called the daughters of Sarah was 
no particular distinction conferred upon Gentile 
women, but to be designated as the children of 
their venerated ancestress and that in the highest 
sense (ὦ. ¢., of similarity of disposition), was the 
loftiest praise bestowed upon Jewesses.” This 
conclusion is corroborated by the quotation from 
Tigh ΠῚ: 

If ye do good and are not afraid of any 
sudden fear.—ayavorovoa, not in that - - - - 
or because - - - -, orif - - - -, but: as those who 
- - - - [so German.—M.]. You evidence your 
relationship to Sarah by doing good. Grotius re- 
calls the amiable reception which Sarah accorded 
to the stranger guests and the readiness with 
which she obeyed Abraham on that occasion, Gen. 
Xviii. 6; and in connection with the sequel refers 
to Gen. xx. But the sense is probably more ge- 
neral and the reference is rather to zeal in well- 
doing, as in ch. ii. 15. 20.—p77 φοβούμεναι may be 
a quotation from Prov. iii. 25: ‘‘ov μὴ φοβηϑήσῃ 
πτόησιν ἐπελϑοῦσαν οὐδὲ ὁρμὰς ἀσεβῶν ἐπερχομένας. 


- χπτόησις, terror caused by something external. 
As those who are so full of trust in God, that they 
are not tenderly moved by any evil or by menaces 
similar to those Sarah had to pass through at the 
court of Pharaoh and Abimelech, cf. Heb. xi 11. 
The sentence contains also an exhortation to strive 
more and more for the courage and manly forti- 
tude of their ancestress, cf. ch. iii. 14. [Estius 
says on πτόησιν: quod dum facitis, non est quod me- 
tuatis quidquam mali: velut, ne maritis vestris dis- 
pliceatis, si minus corrupts inceditis: aut ne serviliter 
vos tractent, si faciles ad obsequium vos prebeatis ; 
ut solet sexus muliebris vanis pavoribus esse obnoxius. 
Sed et si forte nacti estis maritos iniquiores, silentio 
potius ac patientia, quam multis verbis studete eorum 
animos lenire.”” cf. Lke. xxi. 9; xxiv. 87.—M. ] 
Ver. 7. Ye husbands, in like manner, 
dwelling according to knowledge with 
the feminine, as with the weaker vessel. 
—'‘Ouotwe refers back to ch, ii. 17 as inv. 1. 
Weiss wrongly maintains that the exhortation to 
Christian husbands is out of place in this con- 
nection because it does not coincide with the point 
of view indicated at ch. ii. 11. 12. But why 
should it not coincide, if the Apostle addresses in 
turn the different conditions and classes of Chris- 
tians, and shows to each how they should walk 
worthily among the Gentiles, honour all men and 
fear God? It would rather have been a grave 
omission, had he not reminded husbands of their 
duties; the exhortation was indeed peculiarly 
needed in order to avoid all misunderstanding 
and abuse of the obedience of women.—His first 
precept to husbands relates to συνοικεῖν =to dwell 
together, to have intercourse in general and then, 
as some of the ancients understand the word, 
with particular reference to conjugal intercourse. 
It should take place κατὰ γνῶσιν, according to 
knowledge—derived from reason and from the 
Gospel in respect of their peculiar relations and 
wants.—oc ἀσϑενεστέρῳ σκεύει should be joined to 
συνοικοῦντες ; otherwise συνοικεῖν would have no 
object, ἀπονέμοντες would have two ὡς.--- σκεῦος is 
widely used of vessels, clothes and things in ge- 
neral, Deut. xxii. 5; Lke. xvii. 31; then of men 
with reference to their dependence and frailty 
and their destination for some particular pur- 
pose. We are like vessels in the potter’s hand, 
Jer. xvill. 6: 15: xxix. 16; xlv. 95 lxiv. 8: He 
can break or preserve, reject or prefer them to 
honour, Jer. xix. 11; xxii. 28; xlvili. 88; Hos. 
viii. 6; Ps. ii.9; Rev. ii. 27; Rom. ix. 21. 22; 
2 Tim. ii. 20. In particular, the body is called 
the vessel containing the soul, 1 Thess. iv. 4. 5. 
Here σκεῦος applies equally to husband and wife 
as is evident from the comparative doVeveorépw; 
it designates both as the handiwork of God, or- 
ganized and designed for each other. The hus- 
band should be particularly moved to a conside- 
rate, loving and careful treatment of his wife by 
the thought :—‘‘God himself has thus appointed 
and made the nature of woman.”—doevecrépw. 
Calov :—‘‘Women are weak in point of sex, the 
constitution of their body, mind and judgment, 
art, aptitude and wisdom in the conduct of af- 
fairs.” [Rather a sweeping judgment of woman, 
and as ungenerous as untrue. Woman is phy- 
sically man’s inferior, but it is doubtful whether 
she is so mentally. This is not in the writer’s 
opinion a question of superiority or inferiprity, 


δά 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


,ὡμαἽ͵ορρψψψψψψψψ.....-.-.-ς--ς--.--ς-ς-ς-ςς-ς-ςςςςςς-Ῥ-ῦ΄ς---ςςς-.------Ο»οο.---ο--ῬοςΟοΟΟςΟρ-εΟοΟοΟΟΟ--ς-ςςςςος 


but one of diversity. There are mental qualities 
in which woman excels man and others in which 
he excels her. They seem to be well balanced 
under equal advantages afforded to each. His 
experience in schools constrains him to admit 
that up to the age of sixteen, girls are decidedly 
brighter and better students than boys. If they 
do not progress after that period in an equal ra- 
tio, the fault belongs to vicious social habits and 
to the superficial and fanciful ideas as to the 
maximum attainments of females, but not to the 
natural endowment of their mind. It came forth 
from the Creator’s hand perfect after its kind, 
everyway adapted to man’s mind and the two 
equally and healthily developed, working together 
in one direction, supply each other’s defects and 
strengthen each other’s powers. United, this na- 
tural diversity blends in harmony. An excellent 
discussion of this subject may be found in Adolphe 
Monod’s ‘‘La Femme,” Paris. 1860.—M.] Lu- 
ther:—‘*‘Woman is weaker in body, more timid 
and less courageous than man, hence your treat- 
ment of her should be accordingly.” But as wo- 
man’s weakness is relative, man also being a 
weak, frail vessel, he, mindful of his own weak- 
ness, ought the more readily to sympathize with 
the weaker, τῷ γυναικείῳ σκεύει. 

Giving honour as to those who are also 
fellow-inheritors of the grace of life, in 
order that your prayers be not hindered. 
—The second precept is: ἀπονέμοντες τιμῆν: to 
accord τὸ νόμιμον, what is due; τίμν with refer- 
ence to ch. ii. 17. The honour due to them, ho- 
nourable treatment which implies also care for 
their bodily wants.—The reason of this esteem : 
they also are fellow-heirs of the grace of life; 
this is a higher reason than the former, flowing 
from the natural relation of the sexes. Woman 
becomes man’s equal in virtue of the gift of the 
grace of life accorded to and hoped for by both. 
- συγκληρονόμοις. Griesbach and others read 
συγκληρονόμοι, masculine; this reading gives the 
game sense, but the former is preferable, for they 
are destined with other believers to inherit the 
kingdom of heaven. καί denotes the participation, 
ef. ch.i. 4.10.18; Rom. viii. 17; Eph. iii. 6; Heb. xi. 
9, The hypothesis is that both husband and wife 
are believers, or if either part be as yet unbe- 
lieving, it may become believing.—ydpito¢ ζωῆς; 
χάρις --εχάρισμα, the gracious gift of life, of eter- 
nal life beginning here and consummated above, 
ci. Gal. iii. 28. Others explain: grace commu- 
nicating life, or life given out of grace, 7. e., flow- 
ing from it.—eic τὸ μὴ ἐκκόπτεσθαι. (Griesbach and 


others read éyxérrecbat = ἽΡ y to be interrupt- 


ed, lamed). This expression is used of the pru- 
ning, cutting down and tearing up of trees, hence 
to cut off [to cut off occasion.—M.], to hinder, 
render ineffectual. Common and private prayer, 
its power and effect are hindered, where such es- 
teem is wanting, for prayer, in order to be effec- 
tual, exacts a reconciled mind, Matt. ν. 23; vi. 
14; 1 Tim. ii. 8; 1 Jno. 111. 21. [‘*Cum vir et uxor 
non sunt bene concordes, minus possunt oratione va- 
care et eorum orationes sunt minus exaudibiles.” 
Lyra.—M.]. Roos: ‘There is no room for prayer 
that may be answered where the husband de- 
spises and tyrannizes his wife and where a mar- 
riage is marred by discord.” Grotius: “Harsh 


treatment leads to insult and strife, which hinder 
the power and efficacy of prayer.” Mtt. xviii. 19; 
Sir. xxy. 1. Wiesinger: ‘‘The consciousness of 
having sinned against the hope of salvation forces 
itself as an obstruction between God and him who 
prays, and thus bars the way of prayer.” 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The conjugal state is not a human-Divine 
κτίσις, like the secular rule, ch. 11. 13, but insti- 
tuted by God Himself, Gen. ii. 18.24; Matt. xix. 
5; itis a relation of life adapted even to the 
royal priesthood, to the holy people of God’s 
possession, in which they are to show forth the 
praises (virtues) of Him who has called us out 
of darkness into His marvellous light, ch. ii. 9. 
On the other hand, we ought not to deny the ex- 
istence of a pure celibacy; so Thiersch. 

2. Although the necessity of the wife obeying 
the husband is recognized outside of Christianity, 
the equality of husband and wife, in virtue of 
Divine appointment and grace, were altogether 
unknown; hence there is every where (i. e., out- 
side of Christendom) a great degradation of the 
female sex. ‘Christianity,’ observes Steiger, 
‘ig equi-distant from the moral degradation of 
the female sex, which the Mohammedans and 
Rabbis would almost deprive of immortality, and 
from the secular exaltation and deification, 
which, especially since the middle ages, has been 
defended as Christian by those who confounded 
Germanism with Christianity, while it secured to 
woman anything but happiness. 

3. Peter, defining prayer as the centre and 
support of conjugal life, takes as lofty a concep- 
tion of the matrimonial covenant as Paul, al- 
though the Pauline idea that the marriage of 
Christians is a figure of the relation of Christ to 
His Church does not occur in Peter (cf. Eph. 5). 

4. True love in the conjugal state depends up- 
on and is rooted in mutual esteem; where this is 
wanting, the conjugal state is shaken at its very 
foundation; but it is not only esteem of the per- 
sonal qualities and excellencies of either part, 
but also, and chiefly, the appreciation flowing 
from the thought: Thy partner, like thyself, is a 
child of God, purchased with the same precious 
blood of Christ, and called, like thyself, to be an 
inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. 

s 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


There must be some special reason why wives 
are reminded of their duties before the husbands, 
and charged with obedience as their principal 
and foremost task.—Christian wives need not ask, 
which husbands must we obey? The direction 
is unmistakable: your own husbands; conse- 
quently, also unbelieving, harsh, and wayward 
husbands.—Noble art!—to be silent with the 
mouth, and to speak in the life. Augustine tells 
of Monica, his mother, that she spoke of Christ 
to her husband by her feminine virtues, and that, 
after having borne his violence without a mur- 
mur or complaint, she gained him at the close of 
his life to Christ, without deploring in the be- 
liever what she had suffered at his hands as an 


CHAPTER III. 1-7. 


unbeliever.—VeEr. 2. There is often a veil before 
the eyes of a hard husband; doubt not that it 
can be removed, so that he may admiringly look 
upon the mystery of ἃ profoundly-Christian 
mind, and with melted heart fall down at the 
feet of Jesus.—Fondness of rule and dress is a 
bad propensity, which is sometimes found even 
in Christian wives.—The proud daughters of Eve 
may see themselves reflected, as in a mirror, in 
Isaiah iiiiWhat is the heavenly bridal array of 
the believing daughters of Sarah?—Where hope 
in God is firmly established, no evil can terrify 
us.—It is the greatest calamity of wedded life to 
see prayer hindered and room given to Asmodeus 
[the devil matrimonial or disturber of married 
life.—M.].—How do husband and wife walk in 
the light of Divine truth ?—It is the greatest folly 
if husbands act the part of tyrants to their wives. 

Srarke:—Although wives should mainly fear 
God that they may shun evil and do good, yet 
ought they to fear their husbands also, that is, 
not only to give them no cause for suspicion and 
jealousy by unseemly speech, behaviour or works, 
Prov. vii. 10, but they should also make it their 
study to please them.—Holy women, influenced by 
the Holy Spirit, will observe the proper medium 
in dress, cf. Est. ii. 16; Gen. xxiv. 22; Rom. xii. 
2.—Are you astonished to see persons covered 
with gold and pearls, with jewels and similar 
vanities? Rest assured that a believing soul, 
resplendent in virtues, is far more glorious and 
pleasant to God and His angels, Ps. xlv. 14. 
15.—The most respectable dress! Is it to be this? 
You say, it does not suit me, it is old, and makes 
no show. Well, that depends upon whom you 
want to please: God?—if so, it should be glo- 
rious, but inward; or the devil, the prince of this 
world ?—then you need not care for Peter or 
Christ, dress after your own fashion, Proy. vii. 
10.—As the Old and the New Testaments have only 
one Messiah, one faith, one hope and one charity, 
so they have only one inward soul-ornament, 
Acts xv. 11; Is. Ixi. 10.—Wives may lessen or 
increase the cares of their husbands, Prov. xxxi. 
12.—If a husband and wife do not live after 
God’s ordinance, their prayers and worship are 
utter vanity and loss, 1 Tim. ii. 8. ; 

[Leiguron:—Ver. 1. «The common spring of 
all mutual duties on both sides is supposed to be 
love: that peculiar conjugal love that makes them 
one, will infuse such sweetness into the authority 
of the husband and obedience of the wife, as 
will make their lives harmonious, like the sound 
of a well-tuned instrument; whereas without 
that, having such an universal interest in all 
their affairs, they cannot escape frequent contests 
and discords, which is a sound more unpleasant 
than the jarring of untuned strings to an exact 
ear.” —M.] 

[Pustius Syrus:— Casta ad virum matrona 
parendo imperat. The submissive wife rules by 
obedience.—M. ] 

[Jay:—Ver. 2. Chaste conversation implies 
‘‘diffidence, the blushings of reserve, the tremu- 
lous retiring of modesty, the sensation that comes 
from the union of innocence and danger, the 
prudence which keeps far from the limits of per- 
mission, the instinctive vigilance which discerns 
danger afar off, the caution which never allows 


55 


the enemy to approach near enough even to re- 
connoitre.”—M. ] 

[Leracuron:— With fear.—‘‘Fearing the least 
stain of chastity, or the very least appearance 
of any thing not suiting with it. It is delicate, 
timorous grace, afraid of the least air, or shadow 
of any thing that hath but a resemblance of 
wronging it, in carriage, or speech, or apparel, 
as follows in the 3d and 4th verses.” —M. | 

[PLuTarcH:—VrER. 8. Conjug. Precep. c. 26. 
‘‘An ornament, as Crates said, is that which 
adorns. The proper ornament of a woman is 
that which becomes her best. This is neither 
gold, nor pearls, nor scarlet, but those things 
which are an evident proof of gravity, regularity 
and modesty.” The wife of Phocion, a celebrated 
Athenian general, receiving a visit from a lady 
who was elegantly adorned with gold and jewels, 
and her hair with pearls, took occasion to call 
the attention. of her guest to the elegance and 
costliness of her dress; ‘‘My ornament,” said 
the wife of Phocion, ‘“‘is my husband, now for 
the twentieth year general of the Athenians.” 
PuurarcH in Vit. Phoc.—Puato De Repub.:— 
‘‘Behaviour and not gold is the ornament of a 
woman. ΤῸ courtesans, these things, jewels and 
ornaments, are advantageous to their catching 
more admirers; but for a woman who wishes to 
enjoy the favour of one man, good behaviour is 
the proper ornament, and not dresses. And you 
should have the blush upon your countenance, 
which is the sign of modesty, instead of paint; 
and worth and sobriety, instead of gold and em- 
eralds.”’ 

The sense of antiquity on this subject was very 
strong. CrLEemMENS ALEX. Pedag. Lib. 3, cap. 4, 
says: ‘*The women that wear gold, plait their 
hair, paint their faces, have not the image of 
God in the inward man, but in lieu of it, a for- 
nicating and adulterous soul.” The Apostolical 
Constitutions, Lib. 1, cap. 8, 8, forbid women to 
wear exquisite garments fitted to deceive, or gold 
rings upon their fingers, because all these things 
are signs of whoredom. JamBLicuus in Vita 
Pythag., Lib. 1, cap. 31, p. 165, maintains ‘that 
no free women wore gold, but whores only.’”’”— 
An inquiry into the sources from which false 
hair, now so generally worn by women, is pro- 
cured, might possibly abolish this vicious and un- 
christian fashion.—M. ] 

[Le1cuHtTon:—Vv. 3. 4. “The soul fallen from 
God hath lost its true worth and beauty, and 
therefore it basely descends to these mean things, 
to serve and dress the body, and take share with 
it of its unworthy borrowed ornaments, while it 
has lost and forgotten God, and seeks not after 
Him, knows not that He alone is the beauty and 
ornament of the soul, Jer. ii. 82, and His Spirit 
and the grace of it, its rich attire, here particu- 
larly specified in one excellent grace; and it 
holds true in the rest.” —M. 

[Puitip Henry: — ‘Besides this” (secret 
prayer) ‘he and his wife constantly prayed to- 
gether morning and evening, and never, if they 
were together at home or abroad, was it inter- 
mitted; and, from his cwn experience of the 
benefit of this practice, he would take all oppor- 
tunities to recommend it to those in that relation, 
as conducing very much to the comfort of it, and 


56 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


their furtherance in that which he would often 
say is the great duty of yoke-fellows, and that 
is ‘to do all they can to help one another to 
heaven.’ He would say that this duty of hus- 
bands and wives praying together is intimated in 
that of the Apostle, 1 Pet. iii. 7, where they are 
exhorted to live as heirs of the grace of life, that 
their prayers (especially their prayers together) 
be not hindered; that nothing may be done to 
hinder them from praying together, nor to hinder 
them in it, nor to spoil the success of their pray- 
ers. This sanctifies the relation, and fetches in 
a blessing on it, makes the comforts of it more 
sweet, and the cares and crosses of it more easy, 
and is an excellent means of preserving and in- 
creasing love in the relation. Many to whom he 
had recommended the practice of this duty have 
blessed God for him, and for his advice concern- 
ing it.’”—An Account of the Life and Death of Mr. 
Philip Henry, by his Son, p. 58, Lond., 1712, 
quoted by Brown.—M. ] 

[GaTaKER (quoted by Brown):—‘Let such 
married persons as God hath blessed in this 
kind” (by their being equally yoked in the best 
sense) “learn what cause they have to be thank- 
ful to God, either for other. Let the jars and 
discord that they see between other men and 
women mismatched, and the cross and cursed 
carriage of them, either toward other, together 
with the manifold annoyances and grievous mis- 
chiefs and inconveniences that ensue ordinarily 
thereupon, be a means to put them in mind of 
God’s great mercy and goodness toward them, 
and to make them more thankful to Him for the 
same. And since they have received either other 
from God, let them therein show their thankful- 


she had him of God, so she bestowed him on God 
again: return each other again to God, and 
labour to return them better than they received 
them. The better they shall make each other, 
and the nearer they shall bring each other to 
God, the more good, through God’s goodness, 
shall they have either of other. The more man 
and wife profit in the fear of God, the more com- 
fortably and contentedly shall they live together, 
the better shall it be for them both.” From “A 
Good Wife Indeed.” The same author has also 
sermons entitled, ““A Good Wife, Gods Gift”, 
“Marriage Prayer”, and ‘‘ Marriage Duties’’, 
which are well worth consulting.—Forpycr’s 
Sermons to Young Women, in 2 vols., London, 
1794 (rare) are also very valuable.—M. 

[Bre. Jeremy Taytor: — (Marriage Ring): 
‘‘Marriage was ordained by God, instituted in 
paradise; the relief of a natural necessity, and 
the first blessing from the Lord. Marriage is a 
school and exercise of virtue. Here is the pro- 
per scene of piety and patience, of the duty of 
parents and the charity of relatives; here kind- 
ness is spread abroad, and love is united and 
made firm, as a centre. Marriage is the nursery 
of heaven, fills up the numbers of the elect, and 
hath in it the labours of love and the delicacies 
of friendship, the blessing of society and the 
union of hands and hearts. Marriage is the 
mother of the world, and preserves kingdoms, 
and fills cities, and churches, and heaven itself. 
Like the useful bee, marriage builds a house, 
and gathers sweetness from every flower, and 
labours, and unites into societies and republics, 
and sends out colonies, and feeds the world with 
delicacies, and obeys their king, and keeps or- 


ness to God by endeavouring to bring either | der, and exercises many virtues, and promotes 
other nearer unto God, by helping either other | the interest of mankind, and is that state of good 
forward in the good ways of God. Do either | things to which God hath designed the present 
with other as Anna did with her son Samuel: as | constitution of the world.”—M. ] 


CHAPTER III. 8-17. 


ANALYSIS :—Exhortations of Christians in general, irrespective of their civil and domestic relations, to godly behaviour 


8 
9 


16 
17 


before an ungodly and hostile world. 


Finally, be ye! all of one mind, having compassion one of another ;? love as breth- 
ren,* be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing:*® but contrari- 
wise’ blessing ;* knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a bless- 
ing. For he that will” love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from 
evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:" Let him eschew evil,” and do good; let 
him seek peace, and ensue it.¥ For'™ the eyes of the Lord are over™ the righteous, 
and his ears are open unto their prayers :' but the face of the Lord 7s against'’ them 
that do evil. And who ἐξ he that will harm you, if ye be followers" of that which is 
good? But and if!” ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy” are ye: and be not 
afraid of their terror,” neither” be troubled; But” sanctify the Lord God*™ in your 
hearts: and be ready always to give an answer” to every man that asketh you a rea- 
son of * the hope that is in you, with meakness and fear: Having a good conscience ; 
that, whereas” they speak evil of you,” as of evil doers, they may be ashamed that 
falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.” For ἐξ is better, if the will of God 
be so, that ye suffer for well doing than for evil doing.” 


CHAPTER III. 8-17. 


57 


Verse 8. [1 It is better to retain in English the adjectival construction of the original, substituting betng, in Italics. 


instead of be ye.—M.] 


2 gue 7a ets=sympathizing in grief and joy.—M.] 


3 dcdAadeAPot—loving the brethren.—M.} 


4 εὔσπλαγχνοι, literally of “strong bowels,” 2. e., of great courage; compassionate, “mitsericordes erga 


afflictos.”—M.] 


fe Tamecvodpoves—humble-minded. The Textus Rec. has φιλόφρονες for Tamer vodpoves; but 
Griesbach, Tischendorf, A. B. C., and many other Codd. read the latter, which forms a proper transition 


to the next verse. 


The German reads the former, which gives also a good sense. 


Quite a number of 


Codd. have both. The Cod. Sinait. has ramtvodpoves.—M.] 
Verse 9. [6 “Non malum pro malo in factis injuriosis, nec maledictum pro maledicto in verbis contentiosts.” ieee ἢ 


[7 τοὐναντίον 


6é= nay rather on the contrary ; ὃ ὃ renders the contrast more emphatic than aA A 4.—M. 


[evAoyodvres—blessing the evil doer and railer.—M. 
[8 εἰδότες is wanting in A. B. C. K., and many other Codd.—It is also omitted in Cod. Sin.—Lachmann, 


Tischendorf and Alford reject it. 


Omitting εἰδότες, render: “ Because to this end (namely, iva ev- 


λογίαν κληρονομήσητε) ye were called.”—M.] 

[9 Blessing in general, not a specific one; omit, therefore, the indefinite article. “ Qui celeste regnum ali- 
quando hereditare debent, illi sunt benedicti ac filit benedictionis, non solum passive sed etiam active, bene- 
dictionem spiritualem a Deo per fidem recipientes et vicissim alits ex caritate benedicentes.” Gerhard.—M.] 

Verse 19. Π0 © €Awv=he who desires; will is ambiguous.—M. ] 

[1 86Aov—fraud, deceit. Alford lays stress on the force of the Aorists as referring to single occasions, or 

better, perhaps, to the whole life considered as one fact.—M.] 
Versell. ΠΞ ἐκκλινάτω δὲ ἀπὸ kaxov—=let him turn away from evil, and so avoid it.—M.] 
3 §twEaTw—pursue; “inguirat pacem ut rem absconditam et persequatur eam ut rem fugitivam.” Glossa 


interlinearis, quoted by Alford.—M.] 
Verse 12. [14 ὃ τ -—=because.—M.] 


15 é7i—upon (directed upon); so German, Van Ess and Alford.—M.] 


16 §6éyocv—prayer, singular.—M.] 
1 €t—=upon (in wrath).—M.] 


Verse 13. [18éav τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ζηλωταὶ yévnoOe—if ye be emulous of (or zealous for) that which is good? 


Verse 14. [19 a AA’ εἰ xai=but if even, cf. vy. 1.—M.] 
[20 μακάριοι, not happy, but blessed.—M. | 


Κι φοβηθῆτε $68 ov—hbe not terrified by or with their terror, viz.: the terror with which they would fain 


fill you. 


« Sicut summum malorum, que lex minatur est cor pavidum et formidine plenum, Ley. XxVi. 


86; Deut. xxviii. 65, ita maximum bonorum que Christus nobis promeruit inque Evangelio offert, est cor 
de gratia Dei certum ac proinde in omnibus adversis et periculis tranquillum.” Gerhard.—M.] 


[22 Second μ 7=nor.—M.] 


Verse 15. [23 §é=may rather, cf. ch. ii. 23; Heb. ii. 6—M 


24 A. B. C., Cod. Sinait., Lachmann, του ΕΥ̓ and Alford read χριστὸν for Θ εόν.---Ν.] 

2Ὁ ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ Tpos—ready always for.—M.] 

[26 ept—concerning. Translate the whole verse: “ Nay, rather sanctify Christ the Lord in your hearts, be- 
ing ready always for an answer to every man that asketh of you a reason concerning the hope in you, 


but with meekness and fear.”—M.] 


Verse 16. [5] ἐν in the matter in which, cf. ch. ii. 12—M.] 
[5 A.C. K., Sinait. and others read καταλαλοῦσιν; Tischendorf and Alford, with B. and other minor 
MSS., καταλαλεῖσθε with the omission of ὑμῶν ὡς. κακοποιῶν.--Μ.]} 
[39 Adopting the former reading, translate the whole verse: “ Having a good conscience, that in the matter 
in which they speak against you as evil doers, they who slander your good conversation in Christ may 


be ashamed.”—M.] 


Verse 17. [20 Translate, with greater conformity to the original, like the German: “For it is better to suffer for doing 


well, if the will of God should will it so, than for doing ill.” 


A. B.C. K. L. and other Codd., with 


Tischendorf and Alford, read θέλοι for θέλει, in Rec. and others.—M. ] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


[On THE WHOLE sECTION. ]—The Apostle has- 
tens to conclude the Epistle, but not without lay- 
ing down precepts for the conduct of Christians 
in general—irrespective of their social position 
—in their dealings with an ungodly world; he 
substantiates these general exhortations by indi- 
cating the feelings they ought to cherish before- 
hand the one toward the other. 

Ver. 8. Finally, all being of one mind, 
sympathizing, loving the brethren, com- 
passionate, courteous (kind).—70 δὲ τέλος, 
adverbial Accusative, introduces the third main 
division, and conclusion of the Epistle.—[Oecu- 
menius supplies the following connection: τί 
χρὴ ἰδιολογεῖσϑαι; ἁπλῶς πᾶσι φημί. τοῦτο yap 
τέλος καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο πᾶσιν ὁ σκόπος ἀφορᾷ τῆς σωτη- 
ρίας, καί τοῦτο νόμος πᾶσιν ἀγάπης.----Μ. 1---ὁμόφρων 
=<udvooc from φρῆν, of one mind, agreeing in 
manner of thinking, so as to pursue one end, and 
to make choice of one way, cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 
Phil. ii. 2. 

[Robert Hall:—‘‘ Could we indulge the hope 
that such a state of things (7. e., oneness of 
mind) was likely soon to establish itself, we 
should hail the dawn of a brighter day, and con- 
sider it as a nearer approach to the ultimate tri- 


jumph of the Church than the annals of time 


have yet recorded. In the accomplishment of 
our Lord’s prayer, that all His people may be 
one, men would behold a demonstration of the 
Divinity of His mission, which the most impious 
could not resist, and behold in the Church a 
peaceful haven inviting them to retire from the 
tossings and perils of this unquiet ocean, to a 
sacred enclosure, a sequestered spot, which the 
storms and tempests of the world were not per- 
mitted to invade.””—M. ] 

συμπαϑεῖς, the disposition which enters into an- 
other’s weal or woe, joys with the joying, and 
weeps with the weeping, Rom. xii. 15; 1 Cor. 
xii. 25; Heb. xiii. 3. Always to see in the suf- 
ferings of others only a judicial or pedagogical 
element, is contrary to the mind of Christ. 
[Christian sympathy refutes also La Rochefau- 
coult’s slander of human nature, that man always 
sees in the sufferings of others something not al- 
together displeasing.—M. | 

φιλάδελφοι, ef. ch. i. 22; iv. 8; v. 9; Rom. xii. 
10.—eiorAayyvoc, brave, courageous, then also 
tender-hearted, compassionate, as here. This 
quality, like that which follows, has already a 
bearing on our conduct in relation to the world. 
- φιλόφρων, kind in thought and deed, benevolent 
to every body. 

[Leighton: — This courteousness which the 


58 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


Apostle recommends is not satisfied with what 
goes no deeper than words or gestures. That is 
sometimes the upper garment of malice, saluting 
him aloud in the morning whom they are under- 
mining all the day, and sometimes, though more 
innocent, it may be troublesome merely by the 
vain affectation and excess of it; and even this 
becomes not a wise man, much less a Christian; 
an oyer-studying or acting of this is a token of 
emptiness, and is below a solid mind. Nor is it 
that graver and wiser way of external, plausible 
deportment, which fully answers this word. That 
is the outer half, indeed, but the thing itself is a 
radical sweetness in the temper of the mind, that 
spreads itself into a man’s words and actions; 
and this not merely natural (a gentle, kind dis- 
position, which is, indeed, a natural advantage 
which some have), but spiritual, from a new na- 
ture descended from heaven, and so in its orig- 
inal nature it far excels the-others, supplies it 
where it is not, and doth not only increase it 
where it is, but elevates it above itself, renews 
it, and sets a more excellent stamp upon it. See 
note in Appar. Crit., above.—M. ] 

Ver. 9. Not rendering evil for evil, or 
railing for railing, nay, rather on the con- 
trary, blessing, because ye know that to 
this end ye were called.—The Apostle, by 
recommending abstinence from every kind of re- 
venge, and the love of our enemies, follows the 
express declarations of the Saviour; this is also 
evident from the reason on which he grounds the 
exhortation, Matt. v. 39, etc.; Lke. vi. 27, etc.; 
ef. Bom: xii. 17; 1 Thess. v. 1531. Pet. τῆν 23; 
Lke. vi. 28.--εὐλογεῖν, the direct contrast of ren- 
dering evil for evil and railing for railing. To 
bless, to desire good, and to show it in word and 
deed, even as the blessing of God is a reality. 
The word implies, according to Caloy, every kind 
of temporal and eternal benefits, especially the 
latter. [See note in Appar. Crit., above.—M. ] 
---θΟἰΊὶς τοῦτο, viz.: to blessing, do not join to ἵνα, 
ef. ch. ii. 12. [On the other hand, see note in 
Appar. Crit., above. —M. 7---ἐκλήθητε, as disciples 
of Jesus, and children of God, you are destined 
to be the light and the salt of the world, and to 
exert a beneficent influence on it, Matt. v. 13. 14. 

That ye should inherit blessing.—The 
idea implied in these words is: as ye sow, so ye 
shall reap, as ye work, so shall be the recom- 
pense, Matt. vii. 2; v. 7; x. 82; Lke. vi. 88. 
[See note in Appar. Crit., above.—M. 7---κληρο- 
νομήσητε refers, however, to the free grace in the 
distribution of the recompense, that it is a re- 
ward of grace, then to the title of the Sonship, 
and constant possession, Matt. xxv. 34. Chry- 
sostom:—‘‘ Fire is not extinguished with fire, 
but with water; likewise wrong and hatred, not 
with retaliation, but with gentleness, humility 
and kindness.”—Gerhard:—‘ Believers, if they 
are offended, should recollect that God has not 
covered them with His curse, although they de- 
serve it just as much as others, but has blessed 
them with all heavenly blessing.’’—Weller :— 
“Your lot is better than that of the ungodly. 
God has called you to the inheritance of heaven, 
that you might be the children of God, and joint 
heirs with Christ, and become the sharers of the 
Divine nature. On the other hand, the ungodly 
are rejected from the presence of God, and ex- 


‘ 


cluded from that heavenly ittheritance.” [Chris- 
tian revenge is to forgive and forget injuries, and 
to bury them in love. 
The sandal tree perfumes, when riven, 
The axe that laid it low. 
Let him that hopes to be forgiven 
Forgive and bless his foe. 

Cf. Prov. xxv. 22; Rom. xii. 20.—M.] 

Ver. 10. For he who desireth to love life 
—that they speak no guile.—The exhorta- 
tion to humble conduct, and the love of enemies 
is now substantiated by citations from the Old 
Testament. These embody the truth that such 
conduct assures us of the protection, the gracious 
regard and blessing of God. The Apostle quotes, 
without any material change, from Psalm xxxiv. 
γ. 18 to y. 18, the second person being changed 
into the third in verses 13-15. Only y. 18 varies 
somewhat from the LXX., which reads: ὁ θέλων 
ζωήν, ἀγαπῶν ἡμέρας ἰδεῖν, while here we have: ὁ 
θέλων ζωῆν ἀγαπᾷν καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας. Bengel says, 
‘that the Apostle adds new salt, saying: Who 
really and truly loves life, who is so thoroughly 
in earnest about this love that he fulfils its de- 
mands.”? Jt seems better, however, to put a com- 
ma after ζυΐν, as in the LXX. ‘* Whoso desireth 
to live, and to love and see good days.” The al- 
teration may have been’ made with reference to 
those sayings of Christ which advert to a false 
love of life, Matt. x. 39; xvi. 25; Mark viii. 35; 


Lke. xvii. 83; Ino. xii. 25.—ide— FIND , of 


experience and enjoyment.—ratew—to make an 
end of, to allay, to stop, hinder, keep back from 
a thing. ‘The expression pre-supposes the nat- 
ural unruliness of the tongue and its wild, nat- 
ural impulse to evil.” Wiesinger. [‘‘ Calvin :— 
«( Primum notat, que lingua vitia cavenda sint, 
nempe ne contumeliosi ac petulantes simus: deinde 
ne fraudulenti ac duplices. Hine ad facta descendit, 
ne quem laedamus, vel ne cui inferamus damnum.” — 
Μ.1--- χείλη αὑτοῦ. (Lachmann and Tischendorf 
omit airov).—rTov μὴ λαλῆσαι is governed by ἀπό. 
Winer, p. 278.---δόλος denotes acting the deceiver 


or hypocrite; WIV, cf. Jas. 1, 26. David, in 


this verse, refers primarily to temporal life and 
experience, so does Peter. 

Ver. 11. Let him turn away from evil— 
and pursue it.—éxxAivery =to bend out or from, 
turn away from, shun, avoid, decline, Rom. iii. 
12; xvi. 17; Is. i. 16. 17; Rom. xii. 9.—{yretv 
διώκειν elsewhere, 1 Thess. v. 15; Rom. xii. 18. 
[See note in Appar. Crit.—M. ] 

Ver. 12. Because the eyes of the Lord 
are upon the righteous, etc.—The reason is 
now given why those who act upon the preceding 
exhortation may cherish the hope of life and good 
days, and the contrary is stated.—dg@aamoi and 
πρόσωπον are here in antithesis, the one denoting 
the gracious regarding of God, the other His look 


in anger.—ktpio¢ = m7 not Christ but the 


Father, cf. Jas. v. 4.---ὠἐπί not = against, as it has 
not this meaning. Understand: are directed. 
‘‘We are wont to look with a severe eye on those 
with whom we are angry.’ Bengel:—‘‘Anger 
excites the entire human countenance, love bright- 
ens the eyes.” cf. 2 Sam. xxii. 28; Ley. xvii. 10 
xx. ὅν ΡῈ, lxvili. 8. 


CHAP. 111. 8-17. 


59 


a τω 


Ver. 15. And who is he that—if ye be 
emulous of that which is good ?—Inference 
drawn from the gracious regard of: God directed 
upon the righteous. τίς κακώσων, who will be able 
to harm you, who will be suffered to injure you? 
ef. Is. 1. 9; Rom. viii. 38. The sense is not: 
Nobody will have any mind to harm you. Peter, 
at least, knew the world differently and his Mas- 
ter had foretold differently, ch. ii. 12. 15. 18; iii. 
9; Matt. x. 24; Mk. x. 44; Jno. xiii. 16. The 
passage supplies therefore no new reason for 
peaceableness and holiness.—ipyrat τοῦ ἀγαϑοῦ. 
(Lachmann, Tischendorf [and Alford with A, B. 
C. and others.—M.], read ζηλωταί; that is the 
more difficult reading. Fronmiiller) [ζηλωταὶ is 
better sustained and yields a better sense than 
μιμηταὶ, which later reading Alford supposes to 
have come in from 3 Jno. 11.—M.]. μιμηταὶ is 
elsewhere only applied to persons, here it is ap- 
plied to the abstract τὸ ἀγαϑόν, because the good 
as personified in Christ is the point of reference, 
ef. Tit. ii. 14; 3 Jno. 11. 

Ver. 14. But if even ye suffer—be not 
terrified with their terror nor be troubled, 
—But although God should not prevent your suf- 
fering, as indeed some of you have been already 
visited with suffering, ch. iv. 12. 17. 19; v. 9. 10, 
ye are nevertheless blessed if ye suffer on account 
of righteousness, as Christ says, Matt. ν. 10.— 
ei with the Optative denotes subjective possibility, 
without any reference to definite time, Winer, 
p. 809, [Augustine: martyram facit non pena sed 
causa.—M.].—dixacootvyv; ef. ch. ii. 24, not only 
the confession of the truth, but right and holy 
thinking and living, well-doing in general, cf. v. 
11. 18. 17; ii. 20; Matt. v. 20; vi. 83. There is 
no reason for seeking here the Pauline idea of 
δικαιοσύνη.----μακάριοι sc. ἐστὲ ef. ch. i. 9; iv. 18: 
Job v.17. [Bengel: ‘‘Ne hoe quidem vitam beatam 
vobis aufert, immo potius auget.”—M.].—rodv dé 
φόβον αὐτῶν se. of evil-doers, vy. 12. This 15 ἃ ci- 
tation from Is. viii. 12. 13. φόβον may be taken 
actively of the terror which they cause, cf. Job 
ili. 25; Ps. xci. 5, or passively of the fear with 
which they are seized. In Is. viii. 12. 13, the 
word seems to have a passive sense, here an active 
one. Be not afraid of the terror which they in- 
spire, and do not suffer yourself to be discon- 
certed. [But see note in Appar. Crit. above.— 
M.]. ταραχθῆτε, a climax, to become confused, 
disconcerted, troubled. 

Ver. 15, Nay, rather sanctify God the 
Lord in your hearts.—xipiov δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἁγιά- 


σατε - I , to adore God as the Holy One, 


to acknowledge His holiness in thought, word and 
deed. Mtt. vi.9. Calvin:—« If we are convinced 
from the depth-of our soul that the promised help 
of God is all-sufficient, we shall be most effectually 
armed against all fear.” Confession, being the 
outer sanctification, must be united to the inner 
sanctification; hence the exhortation which fol- 
lows cf. Rom. x. 10; Matt. x. 32. [I have adopted 
in Appar. Crit. the reading κύριον δὲ τὸν χριστὸν. 

Being ready always for an answer— 
hope in you.—érovuor δὲ (Lachmann omits δέ; 
then ἕτοιμοι would define the sanctification). But 
forget not that freedom from the fear of man does 
not exclude but include responsibility. The 


Christian, says Steiger, is not bound to account 
for his faith to any scoffer or such like (Matt. vi. 
7), but to every man asking reasons. cf. ch. iy. 
5; Rom. xiv. 12; Heb. xiii. 17; Acts xxiv. 14 etc.; 
XXxvi. 6 etc.—darodoyia, a defence, an apology, no 
learned theories but a brief account of the Per- 
son in whom we believe, of the testimony on which, 
and the reasons why we believe, and of the hope 
which this belief warrants us to cherish. Cor- 
nelius:—'‘*Peter demands an answer, not a dis- 
putation.”—Join παντί to ἀπολογίαν.---περὶ τῆς ἐν 
ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος. We have already seen, especially in 
the opening of the Epistle, ch. i. 3; ef. i. 18, that 
hope, in the Apostle’s view, is the real centre of 
the Christian life. It is the end of regeneration, 
the sum-total of all the blessings of salvation, the 
kernel of the whole of salvation. The primitive 
Christians were often persecuted for their hope 
in the salvation of the Messiah. Every believer 
should become thoroughly assured of the reasons 
for this hope. Christian faith and the hope 
founded on it, must attain such vital strength in 
our inmost heart (ἐν ὑμῖν) as to be able to become 
a counterpoise to the lust and fear of the world. 
[ Luther :—‘‘Jn persecutione oportet nos habere spem: 
si ratio spei exigitur, oportet nos habere verbum.” 
Bengel:—‘“‘Spes Christianorum sepe commovit alios 
ad percontandum.” Didymus says: “Here is a 
caution to those who imagine that it is enough for 
us to lead what is called a moral life, without a 
sound foundation of Christian faith; and here isa 
special admonition to the Clergy, to be able to 
solve doubts and remove difficulties which may 
perplex their people, and to stop the mouths of 
gainsayers (Tit. i. 11) and render a satisfactory 
reason of whatever they do, or teach.” —M. ] 

Ver. 16. With meekness and fear, having 
a good conscience.—[The German version, 
following the Vulgate, begins v. 16 with but with 
meekness, ete.—M.]. μετὰ πραύτητος. (Lachmann, 
Tischendorf [and Alford, following A. B. C. and 
many others.—M.], insert ἀλλά before pera); the 
sense being—‘‘provided” [or as Alford explains 
‘‘ready, but not over ready.” —M.], ef. ch. iii. 4, 
free from haughtiness, scorn and bitterness in the 
consciousness of truth and with the desire to con- 
vince.—d¢déZov in respect of God, whose cause we 
should not prejudice. [Alford defines φόβου ‘“pro- 
per respect for man and humble reverence of 
God.”—M.]. Luther:—Then must ye not an- 
swer with proud words and state your cause with 
a defiance and with violence, as if you would tear 
up trees, but with such fear and humility as if 
ye stood before the judgment-seat of God,—so 
shouldest thou stand in fear, and not rely on thy 
own strength, but on the word and promise of 
Christ.” Matt. x. 19; 1 Cor. ii. 38. — συνείδησιν 
ἔχοντες not codrdinated with, but subordinated to 
ἕτοιμοι. Harless:—‘Only he is able to defend 
his Christian hope with full assurance, who has 
kept in a good conscience, as in a good vessel, the 
grace he has received.” cf. ch. ii. 19. A good con- 
versation is the most telling apology before slan- 
derers. [Calvin :— guia parum auctoritatis habet 
sermo absque vita, ideo fidei professioni bonam con- 
scventiam adjungit.—M. | 

That in the matter in which they speak 
against you as evil-doers, they who slan- 
der your good conversation in Christ, may 
be ashamed.—iva ἐν @.—You were not only 


60 


‘ THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


called to bless your enemies, but to become a 
blessing to them in putting them to shame, and 
if possible, to win them. ef. ch. 11.12.19, ἐπηρε- 
afew, to use hard words, abusive and haughty 
conduct in order to terrify and so to coerce any 
one. It denotes greater hostility than καταλαλέω, 
ch. ii. 12.--τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστροφῆν, see 
ch. 11.12;; 1.16. Join ἐν Χριστῷ to ἀνὰστροφῆν not 
to ἀγαϑὴν. A conversation led in communion with 
Christ, looking up to Him, in His strength and 
with His help. They slander your good conver- 
sation, ἢ. 6.7 you on account of your good conver- 
sation. This is to give prominence to the folly 
of their detraction, which sooner or later must 
become manifest to themselves. 

Ver. 17. Foritis better to suffer for doing 
well, if the will of God should will it so, 
than for doing 11].--- κρεῖττον γὰρ. In no event 
will you escape suffering. Peter now meets, as 
Gerhard observes, the objection: “1 should not 
take it so hard, if I had merited it.” He says: 
Is it not better to suffer for doing well than for 
doing ill?—xpeirrov denotes that which is more 
advantageous, deserves the preference; cf. ch. ii. 
19. Grotius:—‘‘This is what Socrates said to 
his wife without being instructed, as we Chris- 
tians are, respecting the right way and whither it 
leads.” —ei θέλοι (The textus rec. reads θέλει; but 
Tischendorf [following A. B. C. K. L. and others. 
—M.] prefers the Optative.), cf. ch. iii. 14, if and 
as often as it may be His will. cf. Mtt. xviii. 
14; xxvi. 39. 42; 1 Cor. iv. 19; Jas. iv. 15; 1 
Peter i. 6; iv. 19.—[et θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ si 
placuerit voluntati divine, θέλημα meaning the will 
itself, and θέλειν the operation of the will (like 
the stream streams,—the river flows, ete.,) ef. Jas. 
iii. 4, see Winer, p. 627.—M. ].—OéAyua, this will 
is known from what happens to us. [Luther:— 
«(ὁ on in faith and love; if the cross comes, take 
it; if it comes not, do not seek it.” —M. ] 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The above warnings against self-revenge 
and exhortations to love our enemies are not pe- 
culiar to Christianity. They are already found 
in the Old Testament, and Christianity simply 
enforces them by new and stronger motives. Stei- 
ger:—‘‘The frequent warnings against self-re- 
venge found in this Epistle, seem to have also an 
individual origin in the yehemence peculiar to 
Peter and in his holy dread of actions similar to 
that in the case of Malchus.”’ 

2. The exhortation to fear God, which occurs 
repeatedly in this Epistle, is characteristic of the 
Petrine doctrine. This enforcing of fear, although 
more peculiar to the economy of the Law than to 
that of the Gospel, is equally necessary under the 
dispensation of.the New Testament, and few Chris- 
tians will be found who are past it. ‘As the dif- 
ference of tropes (German, ‘‘Lehrtropen’’) has al- 
ways a providential signification for different in- 
dividualities and degrees of development of the 
Christian life, so it is the case here.” Weiss. 

8. The manner in which Peter refers to the 
sufferings of his contemporary fellow-believers 
supplies us with hints as to the date of this Epistle. 

4. To draw from y. 14 the inference that in the 
opinion of Peter it is possible to acquire and 


merit heaven on account of righteousness, would 
be a great mistake; no, only the assurance of 
salvation and the degree of glory depend upon 
suffering for Christ’s sake and suffering with Him. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Beams of the glory of God which shine forth 
from the character of believers.—The blessing 
attitude of Christians in a hostile world.—The 
dignity and blessing of the cherished cross.— 
Are we permitted to love life and to desire good 
days?—Of true and false peace.—The flaming 
eye of God upon eyil-doers.—The Christian’s 
watchword; nobody is hurt but by himself (Chry- 
sostom has written a work on this subject).—The 
secret of being blessed in suffering—a good con- 
science, the shield and protection of believers. 

Starke :—Try thyself—whether thou art of 
such a mind, v. 8. Mich. vi. 8.—All the members 
of the body are ready by sympathy to lighten the 
sufferings of the suffering members.—Canst thou 
requite evil with good? Try thyself; if thou art 
able, thou art a child of God, if not, it is idle con- 
ceit, Matt. v. 45.—There is no member of the body 
with which man is more likely and more ready 
to sin than with the tongue; hence we should 
carefully reflect upon what we speak and how we 
speak, Jas. iii. 5. 6; Prov. xvi. 26; xvii. 27; Sir. 
xxii. 38.—Peace is rare game, in the diligent pur- 
suit of which every Christian ought to be a quick 
huntsman, Prov. xv. 18; xxv. 15; 2 Cor. xiii. 12. 
—Nothing is more likely to move us toa holy 
conversation than the constant and lively recol- 
lection that the eyes and ears of God are ever 
around us. If this cannot fill a man with holy 
dread, he denies God in deed, though he confess 
Him in words, Deut. vi. 18.—Although the godly 
do not cry with their mouth, they cry to God 
with their heart, Ps. xxxiv. 16-18. The world 
is enraged, Satan shows his teeth, it rains ene- 
mies: should this make thee alarmed, thou who 
lovest God? Hast thou not a Father who is al- 
mighty, and a King who is the Conqueror of all 
His enemies? Shall men, vile dust and ashes as 
they are, or hell itself then be able to hurt a hair 
of thy head unless He permit it? Be therefore 
courageous! the Lord be with thee; come hither, 
sword of the Lord and Gideon, Ps. lvi. 12.—The 
ungodly who persecutes the saints runs against 
a wall of iron and breaks his head, Jer. xx. 11. 
—The strength and joyfulness of faith in heavy 
sufferings and persecutions differs altogether from 
self-made stoical insensibility and hard-hearted- 
ness.—The heart is a timid thing; at the least 
stirring of a cross-wind [so the German.—M.] it 
begins to tremble as the leaves of trees. But do 
right, and fear not the devil, Heb. xi. 27.—The 
ornament of Christ’s true bride is within, Ps. xly. 
10; Lke. xvii. 20.—A judicious physician makes 
great allowance for a delirious patient—do thou 
the same for those who err, Gal. vi. 1.—Silence 
is sometimes better than speaking, Matt. xxvii. 
12. 14; Col. iv. 5. 6; Prov. xxvi. 4. 5.—Nobody 
should cause his own sufferings; but those which 
God imposes every body should bear with patience, 
Lam. iii. 26. 28.—To suffer innocently is the ho- 
nour, but to suffer for sin is the shame of Chris- 
tians, Ch. iv. 15; Matt. v. 11. 


CHAP. III. 8-17. 


Lisco:—Christian feeling in evil times.—The 
all-conquering power of faith and love of the 
sharers of Christ’s kingdom.—The art of provi- 
ding good days for one’s self. 

Strer:—Good days without sorrow and tribu- 
lation from without are not good for us, but would 
be the greatest misfortune to our souls. 

SraupT:—Direction for good days; 1. How we 
should live inwardly; 2. How we should live out- 
wardly; 3. How we should live upwardly. 

V. Hersercer:—1. What is following Christ? 
2. What reasons have we to do it cheerfully and 
readily? 

[Leicuton: Ver. 8.—Men having so many dis- 
putes about religion in their heads, and no life of 
religion in their hearts, fall into a conceit that 
all is but juggling, and the easiest way is, to be- 
lieve nothing; and these agree with any or rather 
with none. Sometimes itis from a profane super- 
cilious disdain of all these things, and many there 
be of these, of Gallio’s temper, that care for none 
of these things and that account all questions in 
religion, as he did, but matter of words and names. 
And by this all religions may agree together; but 
it were not a natural union by the active heat of 
the spirit, but a confusion rather, by the want of 
it: not a knitting together, but a freezing together, 
as cold congregates all bodies how heterogeneous 
soever, sticks, stones and water; but heat makes 
first a separation of different things and then 
unites those that are of the same nature.—Beware 
of two extremes that often cause divisions, 1. Cap- 
tivity to custom; 2. Affectation of novelty.—The 
scales of Leviathan, as Luther expresses it, are 
linked together; shall not the Lord’s followers be 
one in Him? They unite to undermine the peace 
of the Church, shall not the godly join their pray- 
ers to countermine them?—Says one: ‘Nothing 
truly shows a spiritual man so much, as the deal- 
ing with another man’s sin.”—Sin broke all to 
pieces, man from God and one from another. 
Christ’s work in the world was wnion.—The friend- 
ships of the world, the best of them, are but tied 
with chains of glass, but this fraternal love of 
Christians is a golden chain, both more precious, 
and more strong and lasting; the others are 
worthless and brittle.-—The roots of plants are 
hid under ground, so that themselves are not seen, 
but they appear in their branches and flowers 
and fruits, which argue there is a root and life 
in them; thus the graces of the Spirit, planted in 
the soul, though themselves invisible, yet disco- 
ver their being and life in the tract of a Chris- 
tian’s life, his words and actions, and the frame 
of his carriage. . . Faith worketh by love, so then 
where this root is, these roots will spring from it 
and discover it, pity and courtesy.—He whom 
the Lord loads most with his richest gifts, stoops 
lowest, as pressed down with the weight of them; 
the free love of God humbles the heart most to 
which it is most manifested. 

Ver. 9. One man’s sin cannot procure privi- 
lege to another to sin in that or the like kind. If 
another has broken the bonds of allegiance to 
God and charity to thee, yet thou art not the less 
tied by the same bonds still. 

Ver. 11. We may pursue peace among men and 
not overtake it; we may use all good means and 
fall short; but pursue it up as far as the throne 
of grace; seek it by prayer and that will over- 


61 


take it; that will be sure to find it in God’s hand, 
‘¢who stilleth the waves of the sea and the tumults 
of the people.” “1 He give quietness, who can 
give trouble?” 

Ver. 14. It is a confirmed observation by the 
experience of all ages, that when the Church 
flourished most in outward peace and wealth, it 
abated most of its spiritual lustre (opibus major, 
virtutibus minor) which is its genuine and true 
beauty: and when it seemed most miserable by 
persecutions and sufferings, it was most happy in 
sincerity and zeal and vigour of grace. When the 
moon shines brightest towards the earth, it is 
dark heavenwards, and on the contrary when it 
appears not, is nearest the sun and clear towards 
heaven.’”’—M. ] 

Ver. 15. Beware of an external, superficial, 
sanctifying of God, for He takes it not so; He 
will interpret that a profaning of Him and His 
name. Be not deceived, He is not mocked; He 
looks through allvisages and appearances, in upon 
the heart, sees how it entertains Him, and stands 
affected to Him, if it be possessed with reverence 
and love more than either thy tongue or carriage 
can express; and if it be not so, all thy seeming 
worship is but injury, and thy speaking of Him 
is but babbling, be thy discourse ever so excel- 
lent; yea, the more thou hast seemed to sanctify 
God while thy heart has not been chief in the 
business, thou shalt not by such service have the 
less, but the more fear and trouble in the day of 
trouble, when it comes upon thee. 

[ Ver. 8. The following passage from Polybius 
quoted by Raphelius, Ods. Vol. 11. p. 760, beauti- 
fully illustrates συμπαθεῖς : ‘‘ Certainly, if Scipio 
was peculiarly fitted by nature for any thing, it 
was for this, that he should inspire confidence in 
the minds of men, καὶ συμπαθεῖς ποιῆσαι τοὺς Tapa- 
καλουμένους ; t. €., make those whom he addressed 
have the same feelings.’’—M. ] 

[Ver. 10. ‘A certain person travelling through 
the city, continued to call out, Who wants the elixir 
of life? The daughter of Rabbi Joda heard him 
and told her father. He said, Call the man in. 
When he came in, the Rabbi said, What is that 
elixir of life thou sellest? He answered, Is it 
not written, What man is he that loveth life and 
desireth to see good days, let him refrain his 
tongue from eyil and his lips from speaking guile? 
This is the elixir of life and is found in the mouth 
of man.” Quoted by Rosenmiiller from the Book 
of Mussar, ch. I.—M.] 

[ Ver. 15. Pope :-— 


Hope springs eternal in the human breast,— 


€ Man never is, but always to be, blest.—M.] 


[BentLey:—‘‘It is certain there is no hope, 
without some antecedent belief, that the thing 
hoped for may come to pass; and the strength 
and stedfastness of our hope is ever proportioned 
to the measure of our faith.”—M. ] 

[ Viner:—‘‘ We are debtors of religious truth to 
our brethren, as soon as we ourselves become 
possessed of it; ‘‘We are debtors in the strictest 
sense of the term, for, properly speaking, the 
truth is not the exclusive property of any one. 
Every good, which may be communicated by its 
possessor without impoverishing himself, cannot 
remain exclusively his own. If this proposition 
be not true, morality falls to the ground. How 
much more does this hold good of a blessing 


62 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


‘which is multiplied by division of a spring which 
becomes more abundant as it pours out its wa- 
ters !”’ 
‘«‘The truth is not to be scattered at random like 
contemptible dust; it is a pearl that must not be 
exposed to be trodden under foot by the profane. 
To protect it by an expressive silence is sometimes 
the only way we can testify our own respect for 
it, or conciliate that of others. He who cannot 
be silent respecting it, under certain circum- 
stances, does not sufficiently respect it. Silence 
is on some occasions the only homage truth ex- 
pects fromus. This silence has nothing in com- 
mon with dissimulation; it involves no connivance 
with the enemies of truth: it has no other object 
than to protect it from needless outrage. This 
silence, ina majority of instances, is a language; 
and when in the conduct of those who maintain 
it, every thing is consistent with it, the truth 
loses nothing by being suppressed; or to speak 
more correctly, it is not suppressed; it is vividly, 
though silently pointed out; its dignity and im- 
portance are placed in relief; and the respect 
which occasioned this silence, itself imposes si- 
lence on the witnesses of its exhibition.””—M. ] 
[ΒΡ. Haru:—‘“The proper meaning of the 
Apostle’s direction and its connection, with the 
preceding advice, may be thus stated: give ye 


unto God in your hearts that honour, which is 
due unto Him, in trusting to His promises, and 
reposing upon His providence, by a stedfast con- 
fidence and reliance; and since ye live among 
heathens and professed enemies of the Gospel, be 
not ye daunted with their oppositions and perse- 
cutions; but be ready, when ye are thereunto duly 
called, to make profession of that true faith and 
religion which ye have received: but let not this 
be done ina turbulent and seditious manner, but 
with all meekness of spirit and reverence to that 
i nik whereby ye are called thereunto.”— 
I. 

[| Curysostom :—Ve_r. 14. ‘“‘Should the empress 
determine to banish me, let her banish me; ‘The 
earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof.’ If 
she will cast me into the sea, let her cast me into 
the sea; I will remember Jonah. If she will 
throw me into a burning, fiery furnace, the three 
children were there before me. If she will throw 
me to the wild beasts, I will remember that Daniel 
was in the den of lions. If she will condemn me 
to be stoned, I shall be the associate of Stephen, 
the proto-martyr. If she will have me beheaded, 
the Baptist has submitted to the same punish- 
ment. If she will take away my substance, ‘naked 
came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall 
Ireturn to it.’” Hp. ad Cyriacum.—M. ] 


CHAPTER III. 18-22. 


ANALYSIS :—Further exhortation to readiness of suffering in consideration of a deeper motive. 


Only thus do we attain to 


resembling Christ, who suffered for our sins, whose sufferings had every where, even in the world of the dead, salu- 


tary effects, and led to the most blessed issue. 


18 


For! Christ also hath once suffered for sins,? the just for the unjust,’ that he might 


19 bring us to God, being put to death‘ in the flesh, but quickened® by the Spirit:® By’ 
20 which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime® were 
disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the 
ark was a preparing,® wherein few,” that is, eight souls were saved by water. The 
like figure" whereunto even baptism doth also now save us,” (not the putting away of the 
filth of the flesh,” but the answer™ of a good conscience toward God,) by’® the resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God ;" 
angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.” 
" 


21 


22 


Verse 18. [1 ὅτι, because, German ‘dieweil, better than for; it is not, as Alford putsTt, α reason, but the reason, why 
Christian suffering for well-doing is blessed.—M. ] 
2kail Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν, translate: “Christ also suffered for sins once.”—M.] 
ϑδίκαιος ὑπὲρ adixwv—=—a just person for unjust persons.—M.] 
*@avarw@eis, Aor. put to death.—M. 
δζωοποιηθεὶς, Aor. made alive.—M. an L 
6 Both σαρκί and πνεύματι, are in the Dative without any preposition: the change of prepositions in 
the English version is peculiarly unhappy, as obscuring the sense; σαρκί and πνεύματι, are put in 
antithesis by the regular μὲν and δὲ; translate: “put to death indeed in the flesh, but made alive in 
the spirit.’ The German has “after the flesh” and “after the spirit.”—7@ before mve UmarTe is Omit- 
ted in A. B. Ο, Καὶ, L. and Cod. Sin.—M.] 
Verse 19. [7 ἐν d==not by but In waicn, so German.—M.] . 
Verse 20. [8 ποτὲ ὅτε; translate: ‘Which were disobedient once (ποτὲ) when (ὅτ ε) the long-suffering of God, 
etc.”—M. 
ΝΗ κατασκε ὃ αζομένης κιβωτοῦ-είῃθ ark was being prepared.—M.] : 
[9 eis ἣν ὀλίγα ι-εῖπ which a few persons. The construction of eis ἣν is pregnant, the few being saved 
in it after having entered into it. A. B. sustain ὀλίγοι; so does Cod. Sin.—M.] : 
Verse 21. [11,126 καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον viv σώζει βάπτισμα. Translate: “ Which (the water), as the antitype 
(de Wette) or ‘in the antitype’ (Germ. Polygl.) is now saving us even (as or in) baptism.” ἡμᾶς, Rec. 
C.K.L. Sinait. ὑμᾶς, A.B. with many versions. σώζει, Present, the action not yet completed.—M.] 


CHAPTER III, 18-22. 


18 “ Not putting-away (subst.) the filth of the flesh.”—M.] 
14But ἐπερώτημα, inquiry (Vulgate, de Wette, Alford) of a good conscience after God.” 


below, in Exeg. and Critic—M.] 
διὰ, by means of.—M.] 


63 


See note 


5 i 
Verse 22. [16 Translate: ‘‘ Who is on the right hand of God, haying gone into heaven.” The Vulgate adds after Θεοῦ 
deglutiens mortem, ut vite xterne heredes efficeremur.—M.] 


21 b rorayévtwv=being subjected.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 18. Because Christ also suffered.— 
If, according to our ideas, any one ought to have 
been spared the cup of suffering, it was Christ; 
but He also suffered on account of sins and for 
their atonement. 

Once, cf. Rom. vi. 10; Heb. vii. 27; ix. 7.—It 
requires not to be repeated and as compared with 
eternity, it isa short suffering, being compressed 
into the space of several years and days. It pro- 
bably relates to the exhortation which follows that 
we also should once for all die unto sin, ch. iy. 1. 
(Lachmann reads: περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν. ). 
-σππερὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, on account of sins, cf. ch. ii. 24; 
Rom. vii. 8. Sins were the originating cause of 
His sufferings and their blotting out His aim. 

A just person for (in the stead of) un- 
just persons.—d0ixatocg ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων. Although 
ὑπέρ per se may be rendered ‘for the benefit of,” 
yet both the circumstance that the context op- 
poses one innocent person to many guilty persons 
and the word προσάγειν clearly express the idea 
of vicarious suffering; for προσάγειν relates to 
Christ’s office of High-priest. Defilement by sin 
under the Old Testament barred all approach to 
God; the Priest had the privilege to draw near 
to God and to mediate the people’s approach to 
Him. This is rendered in the LXX.by προσάγειν. 
Vide Weiss, cf. προσέρχεσθαι 11. 4.—The word 
ἅπαξ confirms this view, cf. Heb. ix. 27. 28.— 
The, repeated reference to the sufferings of Christ 
shows in the opinion of Gerhard, that the Apostle 
cannot weary to make mention of His sufferings, 
hence he calls himself ch. v. 1, a witness of the 
sufferings of Christ. 

Put to death indeed in the flesh, but 
made alive in the spirit.—Oavatoleic is best 
joined to προσάγειν. The restoration of men to 
the lost communion with God is conditioned by 
the sacrificial death of Christ, by His resurrec- 
tion and royal power.—(Cworoeiv not= ἐγείρειν, 
ef. Jno. v. 21; Rom. viii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 22.— 
σαρκί, πνεύματι; the two Datives denote the sphere 
to which the predicate must be supposed to be 
limited, cf. Winer, 3 41, 3. a. The Datives are 
evidently parallel and must be taken in the same 
sense. The sense of the first is clear: He was 
put to death as to His outward, sensuous nature. 
If this is established, it is impossible to interpret 
the second member as follows: He was made alive 
by the spirit that had been given to Him, by the 
higher divine part of His nature. Weiss:—The 
parallelism indicated by μέν and dé, rather re- 
quires us to render, ‘‘as to His Spirit He was 
made alive,” (animated.). Death hardly affected 
the spirit and soul of Christ, but both at the 
moment of Christ’s dying were for a short time 
put into a state of unconsciousness. But hardly 
had Christ surrendered His spirit into the hands 
of the Father, when the Divine Spirit filled and 
penetrated Him with a new Divine life. Flacius 
already observes: ‘‘the antithesis clearly shows 


that Christ was put to death as to one part of His 
nature, but made alive as to another. It is a 
modus loguendi taken fyom or alluding to the uni- 
versal lot of the godly, cf. Gen. xlv. 27; 1 Thess. 
111. 8. Roos :—‘His soul, for its great refresh- 
ing, was endued with and penetrated by heavenly 
strength.” Others take the view that His death 
ensued in virtue of the weakness inherent in the 
flesh, His reanimation in virtue of the strength 
peculiar to the Spirit, cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 4. But 
ϑανατωϑείς does not well suit this interpretation, 
which is somewhat forced. [Luther: ‘This is 
the meaning, that Christ by His sufferings was 
taken from the life which is flesh and blood, asa 
man on earth, living, walking and standing in 
flesh and blood . . . and He is now placed in 
another life, and made alive according to the 
spirit, has passed into a spiritual and supernatu- 
ral life, which includes in itself the whole life 
which Christ now has in soul and body, so that 
He has no longer a fleshly but a spiritual body.” 
Hoffman, Schriftbeweiss 2, 837, says: ‘‘It is the 
same who dies and the same who is again made 
alive, both times the whole man Jesus, in body 
and soul. He ceases to live in that that, which 
is to His Personality the medium of action, falls 
under death; and He begins again to live, in that 
He receives back this same for a medium of His 
action again. The life which fell under death 
was a fleshly life, that is, such a life as has its 
determination to the present condition of man’s 
nature, to the externality of its mundane con- 
nection. The life which was won back is a spi- 
ritual life, that is, such a life as has its determi- 
nation from the Spirit, in which consists our in+ 
ner connection with God.”—M.] [Wordsworth: 
“St. Peter thus guards his readers against the 
heresy of Simon Magus, and the Docetze, who 
said that Christ’s flesh wasa phantom; and against 
that of the Cerinthians, and other false teachers, 
whose errors were propagated in Asia, who al- 
leged that the Christ was only an Aeon or Ema- 
nation, which descended on the Mun Jesus, at His 
Baptism, but departed from Him before His Pas- 
sion.” —M. 

Ver. 19. In which also He went and 
preached unto the spirits in prison.— Ev 
ᾧ is evidently to be joined with πνεύματι, not= 
διὰ πνεύματος, but really in the condition of a 
spirit separated from the body. Bengel: — 
‘Christ dealt with the .living in the body, with 
the spirits in the spirit.””—xal τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ.----καί 
—even to the spirits in prison He did preach; so 
great was His condescension and so far reached 
the consequences of His voluntary, vicarious suf- 
ferings. As Paul the Apostle, Eph. iv. 9. 10, ad- 
verts to the descent of Christ to the lowest parts 
of the earth, doubtless in close connection with 
the exhortation, cf. v. 2, and with the evident 
meaning that the example of Christ should move 
believers to descend to the weakest and most 
abandoned persons, of whose salvation none en- 
tertained any hope, so here the descent of Christ 
to the world of departed spirits occurs in con- 


64 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


nection with the preceding exhortations to per- 
severance in well-doing and suffering.—év φυλακῇ 
not—in the realms of death, for the word always 
denotes a custody, a place of confinement, a 
prison, Rev. xx. 7; Matt. v. 25; xiv. 3; xviii. 
80; xxv. 86; Mk. vi. 17. 27; Lke. ii. 8; xii. 58; 
xxi. 12; xxiii. 19; Jno. iii. 24; Acts v. 19; viii. 
8; 2 Cor. vi. 5; Heb. xi. 86; consequently it has 
not the abstract sense of being bound. But this 
prison must be in the realms of death, cf. 2 Pet. 
li. 4; Jude 6; Matt. vy. 25. 26. This evidently 
follows also from the comparison with 1 Pet. iv. 
6. That it is nota mere condition, but a locality 
in Hades, is manifest both from πορευθείς, for one 
does not go, ὁ, ¢., travel into a condition, and from 
the parallel πορευϑεὶς εἰς οὐρανόν of v. 22. As 
heaven is a definite locality, so is the nether- 
world (Hades).—The power of the death and life 
of Christ operates in two directions, downwards 
to the realms of death, and upward to the high- 
er regions of heaven.—éxjpvge. Gerhard takes 
it not so much of verbal as of real preaching, as 
in Heb. xii. 24, not in order to liberate them or 
to give them time for repentance, but in order to 
show His glorious victory to the spirits of the 
damned. But the wsus loguendi of κηρύττειν, and 
ch. iv. 6, which should be connected with the 
passage under notice, militate against his view. 
The word occurs joined with τὸ εὐαγγέλιον in 
Matt. iv. 23; ix. 85; Mk. i. 14; xvi. 15. Where 
it is found alone, it is understood that the chief 
burden of His preaching was: The time is ful- 
filled, and the kingdom of God has come nigh, 
repent and believe the Gospel, Mk. i. 38. 15; 
Matt. iii. 1; iv. 17; ix. 35. It was just this 
kind of testimony which was to constitute the 
sum and substance of Apostolical preaching, 
Matt. x. 7; xxiv. 14; Mk. iii. 14; vi. 12; xiii. 
10; Lke. ix. 2; Acts ix. 20; x. 42. 48; 1 Cor. i. 
23; Phil. i. 15: 2 Tim. iv. 2. It is never used 
of judicial preaching. It is, therefore, by no 
means so indefinite an expression as Bengel sup- 
poses, but one which has a very definite mean- 
ing; further light, moreover, is shed on it by 
εὐηγγελίσθη of ch. iv. 6. The unequivocal sense 
is: Jesus proclaimed to those spirits in the pri- 
sons of Hades the beginning of a new epoch of 
grace, the appearance of the kingdom of God, 
and repentance and faith as the means of enter- 
ing into the same. 

Ver. 20. Now follows a further definition. 
They are men, who once were unbelivers, in the 
time of Noah. Their having repented on seeing 
the flood break in, oreduring the long interval 
until the coming of Christ, is a gratuitous and 
arbitrary conjecture. Their unbelief was prac- 
tical, exhibited by their disobedience, for so Pe- 
ter invariably takes ἀπειθεῖν, ef. ch. ii. 7. They 
ridiculed the prediction of the coming flood, and 
despised the exhortation to repent. 

When the long-suffering of God waited 
in the days of Noah, while the ark was 
being prepared, in which a few persons, 
that is eight souls, were saved by water. 
-᾿Απεξεδέχετο (The Text. Rec. had ἅπαξ ἐξεδέ- 
xero, but our reading is doubtless correct.), the 
goodness of God, exhibited as μακροθυμία, in the 
long postponement of punishment and judgment, 
and the waiting for amendment; πότε cannot be 
separated without violence from the following 


ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε. It waited 120 years for repent- 
ance, Gen. vi. 8.—Since Noah was a preacher of 
righteousness in word and deed to his contempo- 
raries, 2 Pet. ii. 5, and since the difficult build- 
ing of his floating house, covering so long a space 
of time, ought to have excited their serious con- 
sideration, their unbelief appears so much the 


more culpable. — κεβωτός --- mah , the well- 


known name of the ark, cf. Matt. xxiv. 38; Lke. 
xvil. 27; Heb. xi. 7.---κατασκευαζομένης denotes 
the difficulty and long duration of the building 
which was progressing in their sight.—eic ἣν 
ὀλίγαι, into which a few souls fled, and were saved, 
through, and by means of, the water. διά sug- 
gests both ideas in connection with the compari- 
son with baptism which follows. 

A few persons, put designedly, not only be- 
cause, as Steiger remarks, this narrative shows 
per se the relation of believers and unbelievers, 
but also because the fact itself supplies the 
strongest motive for Christ’s descent into the 
realms of death, as an act demanded by the grace 
of God. Only eight souls were saved in the del- 
uge—many thousands and thousands, who were 
very diverse as to their moral condition, perished; 
how conclusive, therefore, the inference that that 
event took place in the world of spirits, which 
Peter, however, knew, not from inferences he 
had drawn, but doubtless in consequence of a 
special revelation. As the time of Noah was 
elsewhere viewed as an important type of after- 
times, cf. 2 Pet. ii. 5; iii. 6. 7; Matt. xxiv. 37, 
etc., so here also it ought to be taken in a typical 
sense, while the activity of Jesus ought not to be 
considered as being limited to the generation of 
Noah. By the example of Noah’s family, Peter 
was taught the dealings of God with all men, who, 
without any fault of theirs, have not known the 
salvation in Christ. This passage of Christ’s 
descent into Hades belongs to those which have 
suffered most from the treatment of commenta- 
tors. Some distorted the preaching of Christ 
into mediate preaching by Noah or the Apostles, 
others into preaching, which, although having 
taken place immediately in the realms of death, 
was yet confined to the godly only. Steiger has 
enumerated their vagaries; they carry their con- 
futation within themselves, and rest, one and all, 
on dogmatical embarrassment. Our explanation 
is supported by many passages, 6. g., Acts ii. 27. 
31; Ps. xvi. 10; Eph. iv. 8; Acts xiii. 835-87; ii. 
24; Lke. xxiii. 46; Mk. xv. 37-89; Phil. ii. 10; 
Lke. xvi. 19. Cf. Koenig, Christ's Descent into 
Hell ; Giider, Doctrine of Christ’s Appearing among 
the Dead; Zezschwiz, Petri ap, de Christi ad in- 


Feros descensu sententia; Herzog, Real-Encyclopx- 


die, Art. Hades; [and the Ezeursus on the De- 
scensus ad Inferos at the end of this section.—M. ] 

[Wordsworth:—*St. Peter’s Epistle was prob- 
ably written in the East (see vy. 18). There the 
belief in two opposite principles, (dualism), a Good 
and Evil, was widely disseminated by the religion 
of Zoroaster, and by the Magi of Persia (see 
Ps. xlv. 8-7). There also the Ark rested after 
the waters of the Flood. 

The author of this Epistle, written in the East, 
may have heard the objection raised, on the his- 
tory of the Flood, against the Divine Benevolence 
and the Unity of the Godhead, and he appears to 


CHAPTER III. 18-22. 


65 


be answering such objections as those, and to be 
vindicating that history. He shows the harmony 
of God’s dispensations, Patriarchal and Evangel- 
ical. He teaches us to behold in the Ark a type 
of the Church, and in the Flood a type of Bap- 
tism. He thus refutes the Manichean heresy. 
He says that God was merciful, even to that gene- 
ration. He speaks of God’s long-suffering, wait- 
ing for them while the Ark was preparing. He 
states boldly the objection, that few, only eight souls, 
were saved in the Ark, and contrasts the condition 
of those who were drowned in the Flood with the 
condition of those who have now offers of salvation 
in Baptism. He says that the rest disobeyed while 
the Ark was preparing. He uses the Aorist tense 
(ἀπειϑήσασι). He doesnot say, when the Ark had 
been prepared, and when the Ark was shut, and 
when the Flood came, and it was too late for them 
to reach it, they all remained impenitent. Per- 
haps some were penitent at the eleventh hour, 
like the thief on the cross. Every one will be 
justly dealt with by God. There are degrees of 
punishment, as there are of reward (see Matt. x. 
15; Lke. xii. 48). God does not quench the 
smoking flax (Matt. xii. 20). And St. Peter, by 
saying that they did not hearken formerly, while 
the Ark was preparing, almost seems to suggest 
the inference that they did hearken now, when 
One greater than Noah came in His human spirit 
into the abysses of the deep of the lower world, 
and that a happy change was wrought in the con- 


dition of some among them by His coming.’’—M. ] 


Ver. 21. Which, in the antitype, isnow 
saving us.—é καὶ ἡμᾶς (The Textus. Rec. reads 
©, an easier reading. Lachmann reads ὑμᾶς in- 
stead of ἡμᾶς : so also Tischendorf;) resumes y. 
18, after the Apostle’s manner of returning after 
a parenthesis, to what had gone before, and by 
making it the subject of further elucidation, οἵ. 
ch. ii. 24. 21. The thoughts now mentioned are 
by no means accidental, and such as might have 
been omitted, but the προσάγειν of y. 18 remained 
to be explained, as to the manner how it was ef- 
fected, viz.: by baptism, whereof that saving 
water was a type.—4d relates to ὕδωρ. ‘kai, similar 
to the members of Noah’s family.—avrizvurov, 
antitypal, in the antitype, that is, as baptism. 
Two appositions to ὕδωρ. The water of the flood 
is here viewed only in the light of having been 
saving to Noah and his family, inasmuch as it 
carried the ark.—oéfa, the Present is used be- 
cause the saving has only begun and is not yet 
completed. 

Not putting-away the filth of the flesh, 
but inquiry of a good conscience after 
God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
—Now follows a more particular account of the 
nature of baptism, first, negatively, then, posi- 
tively. The end contemplated is not, as in the 
case of Jewish lustrations, purification from the 
filth of the body. Steiger cites Justin Martyr, 
Tryph. p. 331, “Οἵ what avail is that baptism, 
(that of the Jewish lustrations) which cleanses 
the flesh and the body only?” It is rather an 
ἐπερώτημα συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς. In explaining this 
dark passage, it is necessary to begin with the 
more lucid points. The antithesis of the putting- 
away of the filth of the flesh suggests a reference 
to the moral import of baptism, to inward, spir- 
itual cleansing. Hence the Apostle names this 


ἀγαθὴ συνείδησις as the end contemplated in bap- 
tism. With this we have to connect the apposition 
εἰς Θεόν, for a good conscience toward God, which 
is much more than a good conscience toward men 
(1 Cor. iv. 4), is just what we need. Connecting, 
with the majority of commentators, εἰς Θεόν 
with ἐπερώτημα, as indicating the end of ἐπερώ- 
τημα, would yield a very harsh expression, which 
cannot be illustrated by 2 Sam. xi. 7, besides, the 
apposition would then appear to be superfluous. 
But since the Genitive ἀγαθῆς συνειδήσεως corres- 
ponds with ῥύπου σαρκός, it must be like the latter, 
the Genit. objecti, not the Genit. subjecti. As tothe 
matter itself, the good conscience cannot be sup- 
posed to be existing at baptism and preceding 
it, for the Apostle elsewhere regards a good con- 
science as something received at, and effected by, 
baptism, Acts ii. 88. If the good conscience 
were anterior to baptism, it would be difficult to 
see how salvation, by means of baptism, could be 
necessary. What, then, is the meaning of ἐπε- 
potnua, which occurs only once, and that in this 
passage, in the New Testament? We should ex- 
pect a word signifying the cleansing of the con- 
science: but ἐπερώτημα is never used in such a 
sense; nor does it signify promise or pledge, as 
Grotius explains the word from the usage of Ro- 
man law, nor address, confidence, open approach, 
but simply asking, inquiry. ‘This gives quite a 
good sense: baptism is the inquiry for a good 
conscience before God, the desire and longing for 
it. This would define the subjective side of bap- 
tism, with reference to the circumstance that from 
the earliest time certain questions relating to the 
state of his conscience were proposed to the can- 
didate for baptism. Lutz approaches the right 
explanation: ‘‘Baptism is the request for a good 
conscience, for admittance to the state of recon- 
ciliation on the part of such as have a good con- 
science toward God, a petition for the pardon of 
sin, which is obtained by the merits of Christ.” 
Similar are the views of Wiesinger and Weiss, 
except that they erroneously join εἰς Θεόν and 
ἐπερώτημα. Adhering to the idea of asking, the 
thing asked may be conceived, as follows: How 
shall I rid myself of an evil conscience? Wilt 
Thou, most holy God, again accept me, a sinner? 
Wilt Thou, Lord Jesus, grant me the communion 
of Thy death and life? Wilt Thou, O Holy 
Ghost, assure me of grace and adoption, and 
dwell in my heart? To these questions the Tri- 
une Jehovah answers in baptism, Yea. Now is 
laid the solid foundation for a good conscience. 
The conscience is not only purified from its guilt, 
but it receives new vital power by means of the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

δ ἀναστάσεως is better joined with συνειδήσεως 
ἀγαϑῆς than with σώζει, from which it is too far 
separated. In ch, i. 8, the living hope is based 
on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, here, the 
good conscience. The mediating features of 
προσάγειν τῷ Θεῷ and of σώζειν have now been in- 
dicated. [Most commentators connect δύ ἀναστάσ- 
ewe with σώζει, treating the intervening sentence 
as a parenthesis.—M. | 

[Wordsworth: —From the Book of Common 
Prayer: ‘‘Baptism represents to us our profes- 
sion, which is to follow the example of our Sa- 
viour Christ, and to be made like unto Him, that 
as He died and rose again for us, so we who are 


66 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


baptized and buried with Christ in His death, 


Lke. xxiv. 49; Acts ii. 832-35; iii. 21. 26; iv. 10- 


should be dead to sin and: live unto righteous- | 12; x. 40-42. 


ness,” ‘‘continually mortifying all our evil and 
corrupt affections, and daily proceeding in all 
virtue and godliness of living,” in order that we 
who are ‘baptized into His death may pass 
through the grave and gate of death to our joy- 
ful Resurrection, through His merits who died, 
and was buried, and rose again for us, Jesus 
Christ, our Lord.” 

Waterland, On Justification, p. 440:—*<St. Pe- 
ter assures us that Baptism saves; that is, it gives 
a just title to salvation, which is the same as to 
say that it conveys justification. Butthen itmust be 
understood, not of the outward washing, but of 
the inward lively faith stipulated in it and by it. 
Baptism concurs with Faith, and Faith with Bap- 
tism, and the Holy Spirit with both; and so the 
merits of Christ are savingly applied. Faith 
alone will not ordinarily serve in this case, but 
it must be a contracting faith on man’s part, con- 
tracting in form corresponding to the federal 
promises and engagements on (Grod’s part; there- 
fore, Tertullian rightly styles Baptism obsignatio 
jidei, testatio fidei, sponsio salutis, fidei pactio, 
and the like.” 

Baptismal interrogatories were used in the 
primitive, even in the Apostolical Church, and 
Peter seems to refer to themhere. See Acts viii. 
87; Heb. vi. 1. 2; cf. Rom. x. 10. Justin Mar- 
tyr, Apol. 1, c. 61; Tertullian, de Spect., c. 4; 
de Corona Mil., c. 8, and de Resurrect. Carnis, c. 
48. <‘*ANIMA NON LAVATIONE SED responsione 
sancitur.” Cf. Cyprian, Hp. 70, 76, 85; Hip- 
polytus, Theophan., c. 10; Origen, Hxhortatio ad 
Martyr, ο. 12; Vales in Euseb. 7, 8, and Euseb. 
7, 9, where Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, in the 
third century, speaks of a person who was pre- 
sent at the baptism of some who were lately bap- 
tized, and heard the questions and answers, τῶν 
ἐπερωτήσεων καὶ ἀποκρίσεων. See more in Words- 
worth.—M. ] 

Ver. 22. Who is on the right hand of 
God, having gone into heaven, angels and 
authorities and powers being subjected 
unto him.—Now follows, as the further conse- 
quence of the sufferings of Christ, His ascension 
into heaven, and exaltation to the right hand of 
God. A former sufferer is now exalted to the 
highest dignity of heaven. Thus this verse 
beautifully connects with the exhortation to wil- 
lingness of suffering, cf. vv. 17. 18, and paves 
the way for ch. iv. 1, ete.—é¢ ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ; ef. 
Ps. cx. 1; Rom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 20; Col. iii. 1; 
Heb. i. ὃ; Phil. iii. 20. He has been received as 
sharer of the Divine government. He is not only 
King of His Church, but of the whole world.— 
πορευῦ εὶς εἰς ovpavdv—=having gone into heaven. 
It is incorrect that this designates, not a locality 
of the universe, but a relation to the world. 
Wiesinger.—imorayévrwr, οἵ. Heb. i. 4; Eph. i. 
21; Col. ii. 10. The spirits, in their various 
gradations, are now subjected to Him who has 
suffered so much and so deeply. We do not pre- 
tend to determine whether they can be distin- 
guished, with Hoffmann, as ἄγγελοι, inasmuch as 
they are the executors of the Divine will, as 
ἐξουσίαι, inasmuch as they sway authority in this 
world, and δυνάμεις, because they bring about the 
alternations of this world, cf. Matt. xxviii. 18; 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The fact that the Apostles do not separate 
the vicarious element of the sufferings of Christ 
from its typical element suggests an important 
hint to preachers as to the treatment of the atone- 
ment of Jesus. 

2. The restoration of the lost communion of 
sinners with God is, according to y. 18, one of 
the main ends of the sufferings of Christ; but 
His resurrection is also a co-operating factor in 
this great work, y. 21. 

3. There are no stronger motives for perseve- 
rance in well-doing, even where it involves the 
endurance of great suffering, than those taken 
from the innocent and vicarious sufferings and 
death of Jesus. As His sufferings and death 
conducted Him to life and to a greatly blessed 
sphere of work, so we are warranted to believe, 
if through suffering for righteousness we are 
made like Him, that suffering and death itself 
will also conduct us, and others by us, to life and 
blessedness. That which has affected the Head 
will also in different degrees affect the members, 
ef. Eph. ii. 5-7. , 

4. Christ’s descent into hell, or rather into 
Hades, which transpired, not after, but before 
His resurrection (cf. Acts ii. 27. 31), is by no 
means a subordinate point in the Apostle’s creed 
that may be surrendered to unbelief, but a fun- 
damental article. But doubtless it is not founded, 
as Weiss assumes, on a conclusion reached by the 
Apostle’s reasoning, as if he had inferred the ne- 
cessity of Christ’s preaching among the dead, 
both from the exclusiveness of the salvation 
wrought by Christ only, and from the justice of 
God, but rather on an illumination of the Holy 
Ghost, whose organs the Apostles were. The jus- 
tice and love of God now appear to us in glorious 
light, and withhold the definite sentence of con- 
demnation until all men have decided with full 
consciousness concerning Christ and His Gospel. 
He is set as the rock of salvation or stone of 
stumbling for all the world, ch. ii. 6, ete. 

5. Hades is not the final, absolute place and 
state of punishment; this is evident from Rey. 
xx. 14. 10; the lake of fire and brimstone, the 
fiery pit, yéevva, is that final place. There are in 
Hades two provinces or regions, separated from 
one another by a gulf. The one is a place of re- 
pose, comfort and refreshing, Abraham’s bosom, 
Lke. xvi. 22, probably that paradise,to which be- 
fore His resurrection and ascension (Jno. xx. 17) 
Jesus went with the thief, Lke. xxiii. 48; lower 
paradise, as contrasted with the upper, to which 
Paul was transported, 2 Cor. xii. 2. 4; οἵ. Rev. 
ii. 7. Another part of the lower world contains 
the different prisons of human souls, who in their 
bodily existence had despised the word of God, 
acted against the light of conscience, and died in 
guilty unbelief. Here Jesus, as a spirit, ap- 
peared to fallen spirits, to some as Conqueror 
and Judge, to others, who still stretched out to 
Him the hand of faith, as a Saviour. We may, 
therefore, suppose with Kénig that the preaching 
of Christ begun in the realms of departed spir- 


CHAPTER III. 18-22. : 67 


its is continued there in a manner adapted to the 
relation of the world of the dead, and analogous 
to the manner in which such provision has been 
made adapted to our earthly relations (cf. 1 Tim. 
ii. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 9), so that those who here on 
earth did not hear at all, or not in the right way, 
the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ, 
shall hear it there. If this truth had always 
been sufficiently recognized, the anti-scriptural 
opinion of universal recovery would hardly have 
found such extensive circulation. [But see the 
Excursus, below.—M. ] 

6. Baptism is here taken as a means of grace, 
although not described from every point of view, 
but only aécording to its subjective condition, the 
desire for a good conscience, which coincides with 
μετάνοια and according to its saving power which 
is mediated by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

7. This passage in connection with Acts y. 32 
contains a testimony for the visible ascension of 
Christ, which has recently been questioned, and, 
alas! occasionally also by professedly believing 
teachers. 

8. ‘The doctrine of this section has,” as 
Richter says, ‘‘nothing in common with the he- 
resies of purgatory and universal recovery. But 
it affords a lucid example that the atonement once 
made (v. 18) is of universal import for all men 
and for all times. It affects even the dead, and 
the decision of their eternal destiny depends upon 
their relation to the announcement of the death 
and resurrection of Christ.” 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Suffer gladly for Christ’s sake, because He also 
has suffered for you and for all. Look at the 
glory into which your Head has entered through 
suffering.—Consider that suffering happens to us 
only once in the flesh, vy. 18, and that it has mani- 
fold blessings for us and for others.—The uni- 
versal sin-offering of Jesus, the fulfilment of all 
the typical offerings.—The atonement having been 
made for all men, must also be preached to all 
men.—It was part of the reward of the perfect 
obedience of Christ that He should receive the 
keys of hell and death. Hence He was able to 
enter the realms of death and remove thence as 
many as He chose without the ruler of those pri- 
sons being able to prevent it.—There are in the 
prisons of the unhappy realms of death, in which 
unconverted souls are detained unto judgment, 
differences and degrees of which some are more 
supportable and others more fearful and insup- 
portable, Matt. x. 15; xi. 22.—The descent of 
Christ into the dark and horrible regions of the 
world of the dead exhibits the stupendous power 
of His commiserating love.—Christ appearing 
to them as Conqueror and Judge, did not pro- 
claim to them the sentence of condemnation but 
announced to them the only way. of salvation from 
their long, more than two,thousand years’ impri- 
sonment.—Let nobody die with the false conso- 
lation of hearing the Gospel hereafter in the world 
of death.—As here, so beyond the grave, there 
are not wanting witnesses of Christ and preachers 
of the Gospel.—The success of Christ’s preaching 
in those prisons is not recorded; Peter may in- 
tend to give a hint on the subject in mentioning 

15 


the few who escaped the flood.—A threefold fruit 
of the sufferings of Christ: 1. He has brought us 
to God by reconciling us to God through His blood 
and becoming our peace, Rom. y. 10; Eph. ii. 13; 
Col. i. 20. 2. He brings us daily to God, for 
through Him we have access to the Father by 
faith, Rom. vy. 2; Eph. ii. 18, and by His Spirit 
He renews us day by day. 3. He will bring us 
to God in the end, when it shall appear what we 
shall be. 

Brsser:— “Τί is infinitely better to suffer 
once with Christ than to suffer eternally without 
Christ.” 

Breve :—‘“ The ark was lifted up with Noah and 
his family: so we are carried upward and made 
citizens of the kingdom of heaven by baptism. 
As the water of itself did not save Noah, but only 
by means of the ark, so the water of baptism saves 
us not as water only but as water with the true 
ark which is Christ. All the power of baptism 
flows from the sufferings of Christ, from the wood 
of the cross.” Despair not, little flock; look 
through the mist of thy tribulation upward to the 
Prince of glory, to thy King, before whom every 
thing lies prostrate.—To what manifold and rich 
glory do sufferings lead!—How will it fare with 
those who cause tribulation to believers ?—Do not 
abuse the long-suffering of God, believe that the 
punishment of God comes irresistibly and with 
more fearful weight, if His grace has been neg- 
lected. 

STtarKe:—Away, popish mass! We need no 
more offering forsin. The one offering of Christ 
is mighty and valid for eternity, Heb. x. 12.— 
O, the riches of the love of God and of Christ! 
For arighteous man one will perhaps suffer a lit- 
tle, but Christ has suffered every thing for sin- 
ners, Rom. v. 7. 8. 10.—The vengeance of God 
comes slowly but it strikes hard. Long spared, 
fearfully punished; such has been the experience 
of thousands who lived after the first. world, 1 
Cor. x. 6, ete.—Our baptism should continually 
remind us not to act against the dictates of our 
conscience or to sin against God, Rom. vi. 4.— 
There are orders among the holy angels, although 
we do not understand their nature and condition, 
Col. i. 16. 

Lisco:—The glory of the grace of. Christ.— 
The duty of Christians to make a good confession 
in word and deed.—The history of the victory of 
Jesus Christ, the Head of the kingdom. 

[As FRoNMUELLER’S views on this passage, ch. 
ili. 19. 20 and iv. 6 are rather onesided and the 
doctrinal inferences drawn from them laid down 
rather, too, dogmatically, it is but fair that the 
question in all its bearings should be laid before 
the readers of this Commentary, which is done in 
the subjoined excursus, taken from an article pre- 
pared by me for the Hvangelical Review.. January 
1866.—M. ] 


EXCURSUS ON THE DESCENSUS AD INFEROS. 


[The object of our Lords descent to Hades.— 
The passage, 1 Peter iii. 19% stands in the context 
from ver. 18-20, in a literal and grammatical 
translation, as follows: ‘‘ Because Christ also suf- 
fered for sins once, a just person on behalf of 
unjust, in order that He might present us to God; 
put to death indeed in the flesh, but made alive 


68 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


_——————————  —————— ————_—_—_——_$_$_£_$_$_£_$_$$_$<_£_$_ Ἄὡ- 10τἐτἐτᾳ  .,..., -.. 


in the spirit, in which also He went and preached 
to the spirits in prison, which were disobedient 
formerly, when the long suffering of God was 
waiting in the days of Noah while the ark was pre- 
paring,” etc. The reasons for this translation ap- 
pear from the exegesis, to which we now proceed. 
ὅτι, v. 18, gives the reason why suffering for 
well-doing is better than suffering for evil-doing; 
because it establishes the conformity of Chris- 
tians to Christ their Head. He suffered for sins 
once, that is, He voluntarily underwent suffering 
for our sins: He made Himself our sin-offering, 
He suffered in our stead, and His sufferings were 
the means of everlasting blessedness to others and 
of eternal glory to Himself; so we also suffer, 
and for sins, not indeed for the sins of others, 
but for our own, and by parity of reasoning it 
follows that the sufferings of Christians not only 
conform them to Christ (with reverence be it 
spoken), but are the means of everlasting bless- 
edness to themselves and of eternal glory to 
Christ. This applies not to all suffering, but 
only to suffering for well-doing. This ‘‘ beam of 
comforting light falls on the sufferings of Chris- 
tians from this ἅπαξ through xai,” Busser. kai 
indicates the analogy and shows that ἅπαξ be- 
longs to Christ and His followers. He suffered 
once and once only, once for all. So it will be 
with us. Our suffering is only once, limited to 
a short space of time; it is only for a season, 
and our present suffering is not worthy to be 
compared with the glory that shall be revealed 
inus. The way to glory lies through the valley 
of humiliation. Christ suffered as a just person 
on behalf of unjust; of course the comparison is 
only relative, for although we are called δίκαιοι 
in y. 12, and suffer as ἄδικοι, yet is our δικαιοσύνη 
infinitely inferior to that of Christ, and our suf- 
fering not vicarious like His, for we suffer not 
ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, but περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The end of 
our Lord’s suffering is stated in the words ἵνα 
ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, ‘that He might bring us 
near to God.” ‘This is the fruit of our Lord’s 
assion, that He brings the wanderers back to 
the Father, and the lost to the homes of blessed- 
ness;’”’* or, in the words of Buneren: ‘ That 
going Himself to the Father, He might bring in, 
who had been alienated, but now justified, to- 
gether with Him into heaven, v. 22, by the self- 
same steps of humiliation and exaltation, which 
He Himself had trodden. From this verse on- 
ward to ch. iv. 6, Peter thorougbly links together 
the course of progress of Christ and believers 
(wherein He Himself followed the Lord according 
to His prediction, John xiii. 86), in conjunction 
with the unbelief and punishment of the many.”’} 
The Apostle next proceeds to specify the man- 
ner how Christ opened the way of our being 
brought to God. We have here a double anti- 
thesis θανατωθείς and ζωοποιηθείς, and σαρκί and 
πνεύματι; the two nouns have been yariously ex- 
plained. Oxcum., ΤΉΒΟΡΗ., GERHARD, CLARIUS, 


* BULLINGER :—Hic est fructus passionis dominice, quod 
Sugitivos reducit ad Patrem, et perditos in edes beatas. 

{Ὁ nos qui abalienati fueramus, ipse abiens ad Patrem 
secum una, justificatos, adduceret in celum, v. 22, per eosdem 
gradus, quos ipse emensus est, exinanitionis et exaltationis. 
Ex hoc verbo Petrus, usque ad c.iv.6, penitus connectit Christi 
et fidelium iter sive processum (quo etiam tpse sequebatur Do- 
minum ex ejus predictione, John xiii. 36) infidelitatem mullo- 
rum et penam innectens.” 


Catov, Hornetus, Capetius makes them errone- 
ously to denote the human and the divine natures 
of Christ; CasTeLiro (also Corn. A Lap., Fra- 
cius, Estrus, BENGEL) interprets: Corpore neca- 
tus, animo in vitam revocatus ; GROTIUS paraphrases 
σαρκί by ‘quod attinet ad vitam hanc fragilem et 
caducam,” and explains πνεύματι by that di- 
vine power. There are many other variations; 
without entering upon their discussion, we hold 
with Atrorp that the two nouns haye adverbial 
force and that this construction removes the dif- 
ficulties which otherwise spring up. The fact 
is that guod ad carnem, Christ was put to death, 
quod ad spiritum, He was brought to life. ‘“ His 
flesh was the subject, recipient, vehicle of in- 
flicted death; His spirit was the subject, recipi- 
ent, vehicle of restored life. But let us beware, 
and proceed cautiously. What is asserted is 
not that the flesh died and the spirit was made 
alive, but that ‘‘quoad” the flesh the Lord died, 
‘‘quoad”’ the spirit, He was made alive. He, the 
God-man, Christ Jesus, body and soul, ceased to 
live in the flesh, began to live in the spirit; 
ceased to live a fleshly mortal life, began to live a 
spiritual resurrection-life. His own spirit never 
died, as the next verse shows us.” ALFORD.— 
«This is the meaning, that Christ by His suffer- 
ings was taken from the life which is flesh and 
blood, as a man on earth, living, walking and 
standing in flesh and blood, * * * and He is 
now placed in another life, and made ‘alive ac- 
cording to the spirit, has passed into a spiritual 
and supernatural life, which includes in itself 
the whole life which Christ now has in soul and 
body, so that He has no longer a fleshly but a 
spiritual body.” Luraer.—‘ It is the same who 
dies and the same who is again made alive, both 
times the whole man, Jesus, in body and soul. 
He ceases to live, in that that, which is to His 
personality the medium of action, falls under 
death; and He begins to live, in that He receives 
back this same for a medium of His action again. 
The life which fell under death was a fleshly life, 
that is, such a life as has its determination to the 
present condition of man’s nature, to the exter- 
nality of its mundane connection. The life 
which was won back is a spiritual life, that is, 
such a life as has its determination from the 
Spirit, in which consists our inner connection 
with God.” Hormann, Schriftbeweiss, 2, 336. 

ἐν ᾧ. v.19, clearly refers to πνεύματι and must 
be rendered ‘im which,” not by which as in E. 
V. καὶ may be connected with the whole period 
and rendered ‘‘in which He also went, etc.”— 
(ALFoRD), or with τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασι, and 
translated ‘“‘in which He went and preached a/so 
(or even) to the spirits in prison,” Steiger. The 
latter construction seems preferable, for it not 
only avoids the awkwardness of subordinating 
the whole period to what precedes, but also gives 
prominence to the new idea that the activity of 
Christ reached even to the spirits in prison. On 
τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασι see below, πορευϑεὶς de- 
notes the actual presence of the Spirit of Christ 
in the place of departed spirits, for πορευϑεὶς εἰς 
οὐρανόν in γ. 22 clearly shows that the participle 
must refer to local transference. ᾿Ἑκήρυξεν is— 
almost εὐηγγελίσατο (from ef. ch. iv. 6, whose 
εὐηγγελίσθη is used with reference to the dead); 
our verb in connection with τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is found 


~ CHAPTER III. 18-22. 


69 


EEE 


in Matt. iv. 23; ix. 85; Mark i. 14; xvi. 15; it 
implies the preaching of the gospel in Mark i. 
38. 15; Matt. iii. 1; iv. 17; ix. 35; it has this 
meaning in the following passages: Matt. x. 7; 
xxiv. 14; Mark iii. 14; vi. 12; xiii. 10; Luke 
ix. 2; Acts ix. 20; x. 42,43; 1 Cor. i. 23; Phil. 
i. 15; 2 Tim. iv. 2; it is never used in the sense 
of judicial announcement and N. T. usage clothes 
it with the meaning ‘‘to preach the gospel.” 

Ver. 20 describes the character of the spirits 
in prison; they were still disobedient (ἀπειθήσα- 
ow), ὦ. 6... exhibited unbelief in disobedience. 
They derided the prediction of the coming flood, 
and despised the exhortation to repentance, ποτέ 
ὅτε distinctly marks the period of their unbelief, 
viz., the time during which the ark was pre- 
paring. The long suffering of God gave them 
one hundred and twenty years’ time for repent- 
ance. In ἀπεξεδέχετο, which is doubtless the 
true reading (A. B.C. K. Z.) the full time during 
which the exercise of the Divine long-suffering 
took place, is brought out, just as κατασκευαζομένης 
intimates the difficulty and protracted duration 
of the building of the ark. 

Sound exegesis clearly establishes the Aposto- 
lic declaration, that our Lord Jesus Christ, after 
His crucifixion, went in spirit to the place of de- 
parted spirits (Hades, Sheol as in Syriac) and 
there preached to those spirits, who, in the days 
of Noah, during the building of the ark, per- 
sisted in unbelief and disobedience. Why, what 
and with what effect he preached there, is not 
revealed. The Apostle’s declaration, however 
clearly established, has been felt from the earli- 
est times to present many and great difficulties, 
and occasioned an almost endless variety of in- 
terpretations, the main features of which will 
appear in the following classification. Making 
the κήρυγμα of our Lord the starting point, we 
have the following survey (given by STEIGER): 

Curist PreacueD. I. Mediately: 1, by Noah, 
2, by the Apostles. II. Jmmediately, in the realms 
of the dead: 1. to the good; 2. to the good and 
the wicked; 3. to the wicked. 

I. 1. Christ preached mediately by Noah. Av- 
GusTINE, ΒΕΡΕ, THomas Aquinas, Lyra, HaAm- 
MOND, Beza, Scaticrr, LercHron, HoRNEIUvs, 
GERHARD, ELsneR, Benson, al., and among more 
recent authors Joun CLausen, and Hormann, 
(Schriftbeweiss ΤΙ. 385341) hold that Christ 
preached by Noah to his contemporaries, that 
preacher of righteousness not preaching of him- 
self, but in obedience to the prompting of the 
spirit of Christ; so that while Noah was the in- 
strument, Christ was virtually preaching by him. 
In illustration of this view we quote AUGUSTINE 
(Ep. 99 ad Euodiam ; cf. also Ep. 164): ‘ Spiritus 
in carcere conclusi sunt inereduli qui vixerunt tem- 
poribus Noe, quorum spiritus, 1. e., anime erant in 
carne et ignorantiz tenebris velut in carcere concluse ; 
Christus wis non in carne, qui nondum erat incarna- 
tus, sed in spiritu, i. e,, secundum divinitatem predi- 
cavit ; and Brza: ‘Christ, says he (the Apostle), 
whom I have already said to be vivified by the 
power of the Godhead, formerly in the days of 
Noah, when the ark was preparing, going forth 
or coming... . not in a bodily form (which 
He had not yet assumed) but by the self-same 
power through which He afterwards rose from 
the dead, and by inspiration whereof the prophets 


spoke, preached to those spirits who now suffer 
deserved punishment in prison, as having formerly 
refused to listen to the admonitions of Noah?” 

This kind of interpretation, notwithstanding 
the respectable authorities who advocate it, will 
be rejected by candid scholars as arbitrary and 
ungrammatical. As arbitrary, because the Apos- 
tle neither intimates any such figurative preach- 
ing of the spirit of Christ in Noah, nor that Noah 
preached at all; as ungrammatical, because 

a. The subject of discourse is not the Logos 
but the God-Man (CaLov), and the means by 
which He preached is not the Holy Spirit, but 
the spirit of Christ ἐν @ se, πνεύματι). 

b. The object (πνεύματα) designates not living 
men, but departed spirits (cf. Luke xxiv. 37; 
Heb. xii. 23; Rev. xxii. 6). 

c. The metaphorical φυλακῇ of AUGUSTINE “ ca- 
ro et ignorantiz tenebre” and the “qui nunc in 
carcere meritas dant penas”’ of Brza are inadmis- 
sible, the former because it destroys all local 
reference and thus spiritualizes away the histo- 
rical value of the Apostle’s declaration, the sec- 
ond because it takes an unjustifiable liberty with 
that declaration in transferring to the present 
what manifestly belongs to the past: érafev, 
θανατωθείς, ζωοποιηθείς, and πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν set 
forth historical events in chronological order, and 
the τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν “describes the local 
condition of the πνεύματα as the time when the 
preaching took place,” (Alford). 

d. ἀπειθήσασιν ποτέ interrupts the chronologi- 
cal order, and plainly separates the time of 
Christ’s preaching from the time of their disobe- 
dience. BENGEL says: ‘Si sermo esset de preco- 
nio per Noe, τὸ aliquando aut plane omitteretur, aut 
cum predicavit jungeretur ;” and FLACTIUS, as he 
disjoins the kind of preaching from the disobedi- 
ence of those spirits, so on the other hand, he 
conjoins it with their imprisonment or captivity. 

e. πορευϑείς, as compared with v. 22, cannot 
be resolved into a pleonasm; giving to the words 
their common meaning πορευϑεὶς ἐκήρυξε must 
mean, ‘‘he wentaway and preached.” (HENsLER). 

I. 2. Christ preached mediately by the Apostles. 
This is the view advocated by Socinus, Vorsr, 
Grorrus, ScHéTTaEN, ScHLICHTING and HENSLER. 
It is distinguished, like I, 1, by the metaphorical 
interpretation of τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν ; ἐν φυ- 
Aaxkj—the prison of the body (Grotius) or—the 
prison of sin (Socinus, ScuiicHTine, HENSLER :) 
and the πνεύματα either—the Jews (sub jugo legis 
existentes,) or—the Jews and Gentiles (sub potestate 
diaboli jacentes). ποτέ is explained in the sense 
that those to whom Christ preached have now 
ceased.to be unbelievers; HmnsLER, who gives 
this explanation, is constrained to read in the 
next clause ὅτ. But it is a purely arbitrary as- 
sumption, unwarranted by the facts of the case 
that all have believed. πορευϑεὶς ἐκήρυξεν, ac- 
cording to the advocates of this view, refers to 
the efficacy of Christ through the Apostles, but 
it requires an uncommonly fertile imagination to 
pring this out. The supposed analogy in Eph 
iv. 21; ii. 17, cannot be pressed into the service 
of these expositors, for the context is too plain 
to admit of a similar construction; the αὑτον 
ἐκούσατε of Eph. iv. 21 ᾿5---ἐμάϑετε τόν χριστόν, V. 
90, and ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχθητε, Vv. 21, while ἐλϑὼν 
εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρῆνην, in Eph. ii. 17, clearly refers 


70 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. Ι 


back to αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, v. 14, and 
denotes His coming to the earth in person to 
make’ known the covenants of peace, sealed with 
His atoning sacrifice. On grammatical grounds 
this view is altogether untenable, and its advo- 
cates are constrained to wave grammatical con- 
siderations. Although Hurner justly remarks, 
‘‘How this interpretation heaps caprice on ca- 
price, need not be shown,” the following objec- 
tions to it may be found useful :— 

a, The πνεῦμα in which Christ preached, ac- 
cording to this view, must be the Holy Spirit; 
but this is, 1. forbidden by the context, for ἐν ᾧ 
refers to the πνεύματι immediately preceding it. 
2. Gives a double meaning to πνεῦμα, for πνεύ- 
μασι must signify the souls of men. 

ὁ. Christ preached by the Apostles not during 
His bodily death, ν. 18, but after His exaltation, 
v. 22. STEIGER. 

ec. πορευθείς in point of time immediately follows 
θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι and 
denotes an actual going away. These considera- 
tions abundantly refute explanations like that of 
Grotius, which we give as a sample of theologi- 
cal finessing: ‘‘Adjungere voluit Petrus similitudi- 
nem a temporibus Noe, ut ostendat quanto res nunc 
melius per Christum quam tunc per Noen processerit.” 

We now pass on to the second class of inter- 
pretations, viz.: 

IJ. Christ preached immediately in the realms of 
the dead. 

I. To the good. Mancion (Irnen 2 8 I. 24. 27, ef. 
Watcu, Hist. d. Ketzer. 1. 512; NEANpDER, Ch. 
Hist. 1. p. 799), held that Christ then set at li- 
berty those whom the Old Testament describes 
as ungodly, but whom he (Marcron) maintained 
to be better than the believers of the Old Cove- 
nant, who had to stay behind in hell. The Apoc- 
ryphal gospel of Nicopemus asserts the same con- 
cerning the truly good (see Brren’s Auetarium, 
p- 109-147, ef. Marruar, p. 200, and Evszs. 
H.E.1.). Inenzvus (IV. 27,2; V. 81, 1), taught 
that Christ announced to the pious (the patri- 
archs and others), the redemption He had pur- 
chased, in order to bring them into the hea- 
venly kingdom, (cf. Just. Marr. Dial ec. Tryph. 
p. 298). This is substantially the view of Trr- 
TULLIAN (de Anima. 7, 55), H1tppoiytus (de Antichr. 
c. 26), Istporus (Sent. I. 16, 15) Grecory THE 
Great and the Greek Cuurcu, Perr. Moainar, 
Conf. Eccl. Gr. Orth. I. 49, ete.; Jou. Damasc., 
de Orth, fide 111. 26), the Schoolmen (ANSELM, 
Ausertus, THom. AQuiN.), ZWINGLE and CaLvin, 
ιν αι (Fidei Chr. Expos. art. de. Chr. VII.) 
says: ‘It is to be believed that He (Christ) de- 
parted from among men to be numbered with 
the inferi, and that the virtue of His redemption 
reached also to them, which St. Peter intimates, 
when he says that to the dead, 7. e., to those in 
the nether world, who, after the example of Noah, 
from the commencement ‘of the world, have be- 
lieved upon God, while the wicked despised His 
admonitions, the gospel was preached.”’ On doc- 
trinal ground he defends his view by the posi- 
tion that no one could come to heaven before 
Christ (Jno. iii. 13) because He must have in all 
things pre-eminence (Col. i. 18). (De vera et 7. 
rel. art. de baptismo, p. 214, 29). Catvin inter- 
prets φυλακή by ‘‘specula sive ipse excubandi ac- 


animas in spem salutis promissze intentas, quasi emi- ~ 
nus eam considerarent.” Perceiving a difficulty in 
ἀπειθήσασί ποτε κ. τ. A. he explains: ‘‘Quwm inere- 
duli fuissent olim; quo significat, nihil nocuisse sanc- 
tis patribus, quod impiorum multitudine pene obruti 
JSuerint ;” that as those believers sustained no in- 
jury to their souls from the multitude of believers 
that surrounded them, so also now believers are, 
through baptism, delivered from the world. The 
way in which he justifies his interpretation, sets 
forth views to which many, that now call them- 
selves after the Genevan Reformer, are hardly 
prepared to subscribe: ‘‘Discrepat fateor, ab hoc 
sensu Greca syntaxis; debuerat enim Petrus, si hoc 
vellet, genitivum absolutum ponere. Sed quia apos- 
tolis novum non est liberius casum unum ponere alte- 
rius loco, et videmus Petrum hic confuse multas res 
simul coacervare, nec vero aliter aptus sensus elici 
poterat; non dubitavi ita resolvere orationem tm- 
plicitam, quo intelligerent lectores, alios vocari in- 
credulos, quam quibus predicatum fuisse evangelium 
dizit.”’ To this class of interpreters ΒΡ. Browne 
also belongs, who makes ἐκήρυξεν to signify pro- 
claimed, and explains that Christ proclaimed to 
the patriarchs that their redemption had been 
fully effected, that Satan had been conquered, 
that the great sacrifice had been offered up, and 
asks, If angels joy over one sinner that repenteth, 
may we not suppose Paradise filled with rapture 
when the soul of Jesus came among the souls of 
redeemed, Himself the Herald (κήρυξ) of His own 
victory; Browne’s view is that of HorsLey 
(Vol. I. Serm. 20), who favours, however, in lan- 
guage more decided than Browne’s, the view that 
Christ virtually preached to those ‘who had once 
been disobedient in the days of Noah.” The diffi- 
culty of ἀπειθήσασιν BROWNE supposes to be met 
by the consideration that many who died in the 
flood were, nevertheless, saved from final damna- 
tion, which he thinks highly probable. The real 
difficulty, in his opinion, ‘‘consists in the fact 
that the proclamation of the finishing of the great 
work of salvation, is represented by St. Peter as 
having been addressed to these antediluvian 
penitents, and as mention is made of the penitents 
of later ages, who are equally interested in the 
tidings.” We have already shown that ἐκήρυξεν 
cannot be diluted into a mere proclaiming or 
heralding forth, and we shall show, by and 
by, that the antediluvian sinners, not penitents, 
appear to be singled out because of the enor- 
mity of their wickedness, and that the fact of 
their being made the objects of Christ’s tender 
solicitude, seems to shed the light of heaven on 
one of the most bewildering subjects in irreli- 
ion. 

‘ The objections to this whole view, in its differ- 
ent modifications, are— ; 

a. The text says nothing whatever of the good, 
but refers explicitly to the disobedient. All in- 
terpretations which ignore this distinct and ex- 
plicit reference, are arbitrary, and substitute 
speculation for the language of inspiration. 

b. The text says nothing whatever of the re- 
pentance of the contemporaries of Noah, nor does 
any other passage of Scripture give us any in- 
formation to that effect. We must, therefore, 
conclude that the expedient which makes those 
antediluvians to have repented at the breaking 


tus,” and describes the spirits in ψυλακῇ as ‘pias |in of the flood, however ingenious, amounts to 


CHAPTER III. 18-22. 


71 


ao pe Lac cee 


simple assumption. (The last view is held by 
Suarez, Estrus, BELLARMINE, LurHER on Hos. 
4, 2, A. D. 1545, as quoted by Bengel, PETER 
Martyr, OsIANDER, QuistorP, Hutrrer, GEss- 
NER and Beneet. The latter says: ‘‘Probabile 
est nonnullos ex tanta multitudine, veniente pluvia, 
resipuisse: cumgue non credidissent dum expectaret 
Deus, postea cum arca structa esset et poeena tngrue- 
ret, credere cepisse: quibus postea Christus, eorwm- 
que similibus, se preconem gratize praestiterit.” 
Browne also shares this view.) 

Il. 2. Christ preached in the realms of the dead 
to the good and the wicked. This is maintained by 
ATHANASIUS, AMBROSE, ERAsmMuS, CALVIN, Jn- 
stit. 2, 16, 9. Christ’s preaching to the good is 
described as a ‘‘predicatio evangelica ad consola- 
tionem,” to the wicked as a ‘‘predicatio legalis, 
exprobatoria, damnatoria ad terrorem.” Bouton 
quotes the language of Abraham to Dives (Luke 
16. 23 sg.) in support of this view, which is 
however, open to the same objections as II. 1. 
viz.: that Scripture is silent concerning the good. 

II. 8. Christ preached in the realms of the dead 
to the wicked. LutuEr (Werke, Leipz. Vol. XII. 
p. 285) appears to favour this view when he says 
“‘that one could not reject this opinion, because 
that which St. Peter clearly affirms, etc.”” Even 
under this head we have divergent opinions in 
connection with the question whether Christ 
manifested himself to the disobedient as Re- 
deemer or as Judge. 

Fiacius, Catovy, Bupprus, Wor, ARETIUS, 
al., make the burden of Christ’s preaching an 
announcement of condemnation. Ho1iaz (quoted 
by Huruer) says: ‘‘Fuit preedicatio Christi in in- 
JSerno non evangelica que hominibus tantum in regno 
gratiz annunciatur, sed legalis, elenchtica, terribilis, 
eaque tum verbalis, qua ipsos xterna supplicia pro- 
meritos esse convincit, tum realis immanem terrorem 
tis incussit.”” Against this view, it may be said— 

a. That κηρύσσειν, as already stated, used of 
Christ and the Apostles, does not admit of such a 
sense, but uniformly signifies to preach the Gospel; 

ὃ. That such damnatory preaching, besides be- 
ing utterly superfluous in the case of spirits al- 
ready reserved to condemnation (ALFoRD) is de- 
rogatory to the character of the Redeemer; 
Christian consciousness revolts from the thought 
that the holy Jesus, whose dying words were 
words of forgiveness and love, should have visit- 
ed the realms of the dead and exulted over the 
misery of the damned, and publishing His tri- 
umph, have intensified their torments and made 
hell more of hell to them; 

c. That the context forbids such a view, ‘‘As 
if Peter would console the faithful with the argu- 
ments, that Christ, even when dead, underwent 
suffering on behalf of those unbelievers” (Ca.- 
vin); for it must be borne in mind that the whole 
passage, of which these much controverted verses 
form part, is designed to show how the sufferings 
of Christ minister to the consolation of believers, 
(cf. WrEsINGER, p. 241.) 

We come now to the only remaining view, ac- 
cording to which Christ visited the realms of the 
dead and preached there the Gospel to the dead. 
This is the explicit declaration of the Apostle, 
who says nothing, however, of the effect of His 
preaching, whether many, few, or any, were 
converted by it. It is necessary to start with 
this caution, because the disregard of it has led 


many expositors, especially among the fathers, to 
unwarranted conclusions. 2]. g., CLEMENT of 
Alexandria, says: ‘‘ Wherefore, that He might 
bring them to repentance, the Lord preached also 
to those in Hades. But what, do not the Serip- 
tures declare, that the Lord has preached to those 
that perished in the deluge, and not to these only, 
but to all that are in chains, and that are kept in 
the ward and prison-house of Hades ;” adding, 
that while Christ preached only to those of the 
Old Testament, the Apostles, after His example, 
must have preached there, and that also to the 
heathen, but both only to the good, “to those 
that lived in the righteousness which was agreea- 
ble to the law and philosophy, yet still were not ~ 
perfect, but passed through life under many 
short-comings.”” Origen (on 1 Kings xxviii. Hom. 
2) adds to this, that the prophets had also been 
there, in order to announce beforehand the arri- 
val of Christ, but confines the number of the de- 
livered also to those who, before death, had been 
prepared for it. This view seems to have gen- 
erally spread through the Eastern Church. (See 
STEIGER, p. 225.) ‘These, and similar opinions, 
cannot be taken as interpretations, for they su- 
peradd inferences which are not warranted by 
the language of St. Peter, who declares that 
Christ preached the Gospel in Hades to the un- 
believing contemporaries of Noah; nothing more, 
nothing less. 

It has been shown above that Hades denotes 
the place of the departed, and consists of two 
separate regions, kept asunder by an impassa- 
ble gulf. » As we know from our Lord’s promise 
to the penitent thief, that He went on the day of 
His crucifixion to Paradise, so we learn from St. 
Peter that He preached to the spirits in prison, 
and that these disembodied prisoners were those 
of men who were disobedient in the days of 
Noah, while the ark was preparing. 

The word φυλακῇ cannot be rendered otherwise 
than prison. Cf. Matt. v. 25; Luke xiv. 3; xviii. 
80; xxv. 36, 39, 48, 44; Mark vi. 17, 27; Luke 
111. 20:5) ΧΠ (685) ΧΧΙ Ds ext, 59: ἜΣΤΙ: 13}- 
John iii. 24; Acts v. 19; xii. 4 and in 13 other 
places; 2 Cor. vi. 5; xi. 28; Heb. xi. 86; Rev. 
ii. 10; xxii. 33. 

The word ἐκήρυξεν has been shown to signify 
‘“‘preached the gospel.” It has this sense in the 
following passages: Matt. 111. 1; iv. 17; x. 7, 
27; xi. 1; Mark i. 7, 38, 39; iii. 14; γῇ 20; 
xvi. 20; Luke iv. 44; Rom. x. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 27; 
xv. 11; and was thus understood by Iren.xus (4, 
37, 2, p. 847, ed Grabe.) ‘‘Dominum in ea que 
sunt sub terra descendisse evangelizantem adventum 
suum.” (CLEMENS ALEX. Strom. 6, 6, ὁ κύριος δὶ 
οὐδὲν ἕτερον εἰς gdov κατῆλθεν, ἢ διὰ τὸ εὐαγγελίσα-. 
σθαι. So Cyrin ALEX. on John xvi. 16, and in 
Hom. Pasch. 20.) 

In concluding this Excursus, it is important 
to observe that the Apostle teaches nothing that 
bears any resemblance to the Popish notion of 
purgatory, since hades and purgatory are two dis- 
tinct conceptions, the one being the abode of all 
the departed, the other a supposed place of puri- 
fication for a particular class of Christians; nor 
does he teach universal recovery ; nor does he 
intimate any thing in favour of a second proba- 
tion after death. In addition to this caution, the 
reader is referred to the capital note of Rev. 
Dr. Schaff on Matthew XII. 82. pn. 228, 229 


72 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


CHAPTER IV. 1-6. 


ANALysIs :—Exhortation to being armed with the mind of the sufferings of Christ, and to killing the flesh in order to make 


1 


a Ore Ww bo 


room for the life of the spirit. 


Forasmuch then! as Christ hath suffered for us? in the flesh, arm yourselves® like- 
wise with the same mind: for‘ he that hath suffered in the flesh® hath ceased® from 
sin; That he’ no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, 
but to the will of God.* For the time past of our life may suffice® us to have wrought 
the will of the Gentiles, when” we walked in" lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, rey- 
ellings, banquetings, and abominable” idolatries: Wherein’ they think it strange that 
ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give 
account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For, for this cause™® 
was the gospel preached also to them that are dead," that they might be judged "ἴ accord- 


ing to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. 


Verse 1. β 
2 


Sin. reads ὑπὲρ ὑμῶ ν.--Μ.] 


οὗ v=then, better than forasmuch; render, “Christ then having suffered.”—M.] 
ὑπὲρ ἡ μῶν inserted in Text. Rec., A. Καὶ. L., omitted in B.C. and by Lachmann and Tischendorf. Cod. 


467 .=because, gives areason for τὴν αὐτὴν ἔννοιαν ὁπλίσασθε.--Μ.] 


ἥ καὶ ὑμεῖς ὁπλίσασθ ε---" Do you also arm yourself with,” strongly emphatic.—M.] 


ὅσαρκί. Text. Rec. inserts ἐν before second σαρκὶ with K., Vulgate and others; A. B.C. L., Cod. Sin., 


Alford omit it. 


[ὃ πέπαυται, Pass..—is made to cease; he has rest from sin. 
Verse 2, [7 εἰς τὸ μηκέτιτε" with a view, to the end that”; depends οὴ ὁπλίσασθε. 
but the construction and sense require the continuance of the 2 p. Plural. 


σαρκί, used adverbially—quod ad carnem.—M 


μ᾽ 
Winer ᾧ 39, 3, p. 277.—M.] 
The Greek has no pronoun, 
The 3 p. Sing. of the Eng- 


lish version is singularly unhappy, and obscures the sense.—M. | 
[8 Render, either with Alford, “ With a view no longer (μηκέτι subjective) by the lusts of men, but by the 
will of God, to live the rest of your time in the flesh”; or to avoid the awkwardness of that rendering : 
“To the end that, as for the rest of your time in the flesh, ye should live no longer to (as conforming to) 
the lusts of men but to the will of God.”—M.] 
Verse 3. [9ἀρκετὸς yap ἡμῖν, Text. Rec., with C.K. L.; Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, with A. B. omit ἡμῖν, 
Cod. Sin. hasvaiv. τοῦ βίου after χρόνος inserted in Text. Rec. with K. L., omitted in A. B. C., 
Alford, Lachmann and Tischendorf. Translate: ‘‘ For sufficient is the past time (07 the time past of 


your life).”—M.] 


, 


[9 Cod. Sin. has πορενόμενους, bnt read with Receptus, πετπορευμένου ς, and translate, “ walking as 


you have done”’, so Alford.—M.] 
lageAyeiacs, Plural.—M.] 


124 @eutiTovs—tlawless, godless, nefarious.—M.] 


Verse 4. (18 ἐν g=at which—M.j 


τῆς ἀσῶτίας avaxvocv—=slough or puddle of profligacy.—M.] 


Verse 5. 


Weis τοῦτο yap=—for to this end.—M.} 
Verse 6. 


δ καὶ vexpots=even to dead men.—M.] 


17 Translate: “That they might indeed be judged according to men as to the flesh (see note 5 under y. 1), but 
that they might (continue tc) live (present tense) according to God, as to the spirit.”—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 1. Christ then, having suffered for 
us—do you also arm yourselves with the 
same mind.—oiy takes up again ch. iii. 18, and 
shows that the subject developed in ch. iii. 19- 
22 is governed by the reference to the sufferings 
of Christ.—izép ἡμῶν, for our benefit and in our 
stead, cf. ch. iii. 18.—capxi; Roos rightly re- 
marks that Peter never uses σάρξ in the bad sense 
in which Paul has used it several times, but only 
as denoting the weak, mortal nature belonging to 
our earthly condition.—évvoa; Wiesinger [and 
Calvin, Beza, Gerhard, Bengel and Erasm.- 
Schmidt.—M.] render it “thought,” but it de- 
notes as much as mens, mind, intent, resolution, 
as appears from a passage from Isocrates, cited 
by Riemer. [ov γὰρ [ol Θεοὶ] αὐτόχειρες οὔτε τῶν 
ἀγαϑῶν οὔτε τῶν κακῶν γίγνονται τῶν συμβαινόντων 
αὐτοῖς, [τοῖς ἀνϑρώποις, ἀλλ᾽ ἑκάστοις τοιαύτην 
ἔννοιαν ἐμποιοῦσιν, ὥστε δὶ ἀλλήλων ἡμῖν ἑκάτερα 
παραγίγνεσϑαι τούτων; see also Eur. Hel. 1026; 
Diodor. Sic. 11, 80.—M.] Exhibit a manly, con- 
stant readiness (intent) to suffer innocently for 
the sins of others and for their benefit (yet not 


vicariously) with the purpose, as much as you 
are able, to remove sin and to conduct souls to 
God.—<érAicacde, cf. Rom. xiii. 12; 2 Cor. x. 4; 
Eph. vi. 11; use this purpose as a shield against 
temptation to sin. 

[Arming oneself with a thought, without the 
intent or resolution of using it as a piece of ar- 
mour for defensive warfare, conveys no very clear 
idea. The aforesaid commentators, who render 
ἔννοιαν, thought, and ὅτε, that, are clearly embar- 
rassed about καὶ ὑμεῖς and τὴν αὐτήν, which are 
decisive for the interpretation given in the text. 
“Do ye also arm yourselves (καὶ ὑμεῖς) with the 
same (τὴν αὐτήν) mind, viz.: put on the purpose to 
suffer in the flesh, as Christ did, as a piece of 
armour.” This strikes us as being far more to 
the point than the paraphrase of Amyraut: 
‘¢ Mais encore nous nous devons armer de cette bonne 
pensée contre toutes sortes de tentations au mal, que 
celui qui a souffert en cette nature humaine, n'a des- 
ormais plus de commerce avec le péché;”’ or the in 
terpretation of Gerhard: ‘re rectius accipitur ex- 
positive, exponit enim Apostolus wlam cogitationem 
ἔννοιαν qua nos vult armari: hee cogitatio erit vobis 
uistar firmissimi scuti et munimenti contra peccatum.” 
It is, moreover, difficult to make good sense of 


‘CHAP. IV. 1-6. 


73 


these interpretations, unless the thought be clothed 
with intent.—M. ] 

ὅτι must not be joined with ἔννοια, as specify- 
ing the substance of this thought, this would re- 
quire ταύτην instead of τὴν ait#v,—but it defines 
the exhortation more closely. [Rendering ὅτι 
because, as Alford does, makes his paraphrase 
very forcible, ‘‘and ye will need this arming, be- 
cause the course of suffering according to the 
flesh which ye have to undergo ending in an en- 
tire freedom from sin, your warfare with sin 
must be begun and carried on from this time for- 
ward.”—M. 

Because He that hath suffered as to the 
flesh hath rest from sin.—6 παθὼν ἐν σαρκί, it 
appears to me, is best applied to Christ Himself; 
the expression then connects closely with that 
which precedes, and defines it. For He who has 
once suffered as to the flesh, which suffering in- 
cludes His death, as in ch, iii. 18, has now rest 
from sin, He is fortified against all its assaults. 
[πάσχειν σαρκί means to suffer according to the 
flesh. Winer, p. 431. The Dative, relating to 
things, denotes that in reference to which an ac- 
tion is done, or a state exists. Winer, p. 228.— 
M.] He has died unto sin once, as Paul ex- 
presses it in Rom. vi. 10.7. Hence, he who puts 
on His mind, and is in communion with Him, 
henceforth must serve sin no more. The Aorist 
παθών denotes an action once existing, but having 
now absolutely passedaway. Allother explana- 
tions are liable to many grammatical and psycho- 
logical objections. Weiss: ‘‘He that suffers on 
account of sin, because of opposition to sin, 
thereby breaks with sin, and testifies that he will 
no longer obey the will of the world.” But the 
Aorist παθών, not the Present πάσχων is used; 
again, many experiences might contradict the 
general statement, and the exhortation which fol- 
lows would seem to be superfluous.—Others are 
compelled to have recourse to arbitrary supple- 
ments. So Steiger: ‘‘Christ suffering bodily 
freed us from sin, and we, participating by faith 
in the sufferings of Christ, die unto sin.” Grotius 
and others, contrary to all grammatical usage, 
understand the passage of the crucifying and 
the mortification of fleshly lusts. 

Ver. 2. To the end that. ... ye should 
not.—Join εἰς τὸ μηκέτε with ὁπλίσασθε, not with 
πέπαυται, Which concludes the parenthesis. Ac- 
quire the mind which has done with sin, so that 
your relation to sin may be that of one who has 
died and is risen again, as that of Christ after 
His exaltation, ch. iii. 21. 22. 

To the lusts of men, not to be taken as 
= fleshly, worldly lusts in general (κοσμικαΐ, 
σαρκικαὶ ἐπιθυμίαι, Tit. ii. 12; Rom. xii. 2), not as 
in ch. i. 14; 11. 11, but in a narrower sense with 
reference to v. 4, denoting the desire of worldly- 
minded men, that believers also ought to live as 
they do, and that they ought not to single them- 
selves out at the world’s disposition to coerce 
them also to serve its idols. The will of God 
alone ought to be our pole-star. The Dative is 
the dativus commodi, to live to some one—to de- 
vote to him one’s life, to place oneself at his ser- 
vice, cf. ch. ii. 24; Gal. ii. 19. 

The rest of your time in the flesh,—the 
time of our pilgrimage, asin ch.i. 17. This is 


to indicate that our earthly life constitutes only 
a small part of our existence, and that to indi- 
vidual Christians, after their conversion, only a 
brief term of grace is allotted. But there is 
also a reference to what follows. 

Ver. 3. For sufficient is the past time— 
to have wrought the will of the Gentiles. 
—apketoc yap ἡμῖν se. ἐστιν.---- ΤῊ following Infin- 
itive depends on these words; the time past is 
sufficient to have wrought the will of the Gen- 
tiles. Here is an implied irony. If you believe 
that you are debtors to the flesh (Rom. viii. 12), 
and obliged to serve sin, surely you have done 
enough, and more than enough of it, you have 
abundantly done your duty in the service of sin. 
Grotius quotes a passage from Martial: ‘ Lusistis, 
satis est—’” you have played, it is enough. This 
lessens the severity of the reproach. Otherwise 
Bengel, who avers that penitents are seized with 
a loathing of sin. 

TO βούλημα τῶν evOv.—(The Text. Rec. has 
θέλημα). On the demands made upon them by 
the heathen, among whom they were obliged to 
live, cf. v. 2. Suppose that the readers of Pe- 
ter’s Epistle had been formerly heathens, his re- 
proaching them with haying formerly done the 
will of the Gentiles would surely be singular. 
This passage, therefore, renders it highly prob- 
able that he was addressing Jewish Christians, 
who, belonging to the chosen people of God, and 
having received extraordinary revelations, ought 
so much the less have placed themselves on a 
level with the heathen. Paul also reproaches the 
Jews with their heathenish, vicious life, Rom. ii. 
Only the expression ἀθέμιτοι εἰδωλολατρεῖαι might 
militate against our view.— AQeuitoc—things for- 
bidden by, wrong and wicked before laws human 
and divine, especially opposed to the law of the 
Old Covenant, Acts x. 28. It is asked, Where is 
the evidence of such open participating on the 
part of the Jews of that time in such heathen in- 
iquities? Weiss replies that the expression is 
susceptible of a wider meaning, that the use of 
the Plural intimates an enlarged application of 
the term, cf. Eph. v. 5; Col. iii. 5; Phil. iii. 19, 
and that ἀϑεμίτοις relates to persons on whom the 
law of the Old Covenant was obligatory. Gro- 
tius calls attention to their participation in the 
common meals of heathen communities. Those 
who are not satisfied with these explanations 
may reflect that individual former heathen may 
have joined those Jewish Christian congregations. 
[On the other hand, the strong expressions used 
by the Apostle seem to contemplate a great deal 
more than isolated participation in heathen wick- 
edness and abomination. There is absolutely no 
evidence that the Jews ever went so far as the 
language employed indicates. Moreover, there 
is nothing absurd, or even strange, in the Apos- 
tle’s reproach, if addressed to Gentile Christians; 
they had doubtless intimate relations with their 
friends in heathenism, and the danger of relaps- 
ing into their abominations must have been ever 
present, at all events, it was as great as that of 
modern Christians, from intercourse with worldly 
and ungodly people, of relapsing into the ways 
of an ungodly world.—M. 7---κατειργάσϑαι alludes 
to sexual sins. 

Walking (as ye have done) in — idol 


74 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


atries.—reropevuévouc like περιπατεῖν ἐν ---- σι 


Lke. i. 6; Acts ix. 81; 2 Pet. ii. 10. Caloy: 
‘“‘Not only because life is compared to a journey, 
but also in order to denote the eagerness with 
which they go on from sin to sin.” ---ἀσέλγειαι, li- 
centious practices, the outbreaks of intemperance, 
and excesses of every kind, while ἐπιθυμίαι denote 
hidden sins of voluptuousness, inward unchastity 
and lewdness, where the power to indulge in 
outward acts is wanting.—olvodAvyia; φλύω to 
bubble up, overflow like boiling water, intoxica- 
tion.—xduo, cf. Rom. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 21, fes- 
tive processions on days sacred to Bacchus, char- 
acterized by wild revelling, licentious songs and 
jests, and folly in general. Then banqueting, 
convivial carousing, terminating, as Eustathius 
remarks, in deep 5160}. --- πότος, particularly 
drinking in common, drinking-bouts. 

Ver. 4. At which—speaking evil of you. 
—iv @ relates todpxeréc. Suffering it to suffice, and 
giving up your former course, seems strange, and 
is altogether inexplicable to them. The fuller 
meaning is brought out by μὴ συντρεχόντων ὑμῶν, 
because you no longer join them and run with 
ethem.—eic τὴν αὐτὴν---ἀνάχυσιν, probably a place 
reached by the sea at the flood-tide, the flowed- 
out water forming a pool or puddle.—dowria from 
ἄσωτος, without salvation, past redemption, hence 
extravagant, voluptuous, profligate manner of 
life, Eph. v. 18; Tit. i. 6; Lke. xv. 18: εἰς τὴν 
αὐτῆν into which formerly they had thrown them- 
selves, and dragged you. 

[Wordsworth:—A strong and expressive meta- 
phor, especially in countries where after violent 
rain the gutters are suddenly swollen and pour 
their contents together with violence into a com- 
mon sewer. Such is the Apostolic figure of vi- 
cious companies rushing together in a filthy con- 
ference for reckless indulgence and effusion in 
sin, cf. Juvenal, 3, 63, ‘‘ Jam pridem Syrus in Ti- 
berim DEFLUXIT Orontes,” etc., and G. Dyer’s De- 
scription of the Ruins of Rome, vv. 62-66.—M.] 

βλασφημοῦντες. ---- Grotius: —Of Christians as 
those who leave civil society; Calov:—Of the 
Christian religion, because it leads to a different 
manner of life. The two ideas may be combined. 

Ver. 5. Who shall give account—dead. 
—Let not their evil speaking confuse you, they 
will have to render account.—ré ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι. 
He is fully prepared, all the means and necessary 
conditions are already in His hand, as described 
in Ps. vii. 12-44.—évra¢ καὶ νεκρούς, ef. Acts x. 
42. None can escape the judgment, it compre- 
hends all, no matter whether at the appearing of 
the Judge one is alive or dead; and it may come 
at any moment. ‘Where the Apostles did not 
treat expressly of the time of Christ’s advent, they 
were wont to describe it as immediately impend- 
ing.” 

Ver. 6. For to this end was the Gospel 
preached even to them that are dead.— 
This evidently goes back to the important pas- 
sage, ch. iii. 19, 20. The Apostle meets the ob- 
jection: Can the dead also be judged? Yes, and 
for this very purpose Christ, as aforesaid, preached 
the Gospel in Hades tothe dead. This is the most 
natural connection. Bengel takes it in conjunc- 
tion with ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι, the Judge is ready, for 


the end must come after the Gospel has been 
preached. Steiger: ‘The verse is to prove not 
the reality, but the moral possibility, the justice 
of a judgment even on the dead, since the Gospel 
was preached to them also for the purpose of 
giving them the means of being delivered from 
the wrath of God.” So Weiss and Wiesinger.— 
νεκροῖς in our exposition is not to be taken gene- 
rally, as v. 5, but as applying to those spirits in 
prison; these are adduced by way of example, 
from which we may draw a conclusion affecting 
all other dead men, who before Christ were surely 
as yet more or less in prison.—«ypirrev ch. iii. 
19, explains εὐηγγελίσϑη; οἵ. Matt. xi. 5; Rom. x. 
15. The above-mentioned example is therefore 
simply to prove the universality of the judgment 
as extending also to the dead; that it is just, isa 
secondary point. But what is the object of that 
preaching which was vouchsafed to the dead and 
particularly to the dead of the deluge ? 

That they might indeed be judged—as 
to the spirit.—Various expositions, arising 
from dogmatical prejudices, have been set up 
with regard to this passage, which we do not re- 
fute in this place. The right exposition depends 
on the correct meaning of κριϑῶσι. The tense is 
designedly different from ζῶσι in the correspond- 
ing secondary sentence. The Aorist as contrasted 
with the Present points to some past action; it is 
used of past actions, see Winer.—iva after εὐηγ- 
γελίσθη refers to something subsequent to the 
preaching of the Gospel. This apparent contra- 
diction is solved, if κρίνεσθαι is taken to denote a 
judicial sentence, as such decisions are made by 
human tribunals (κατὰ ἀνθρώπους). On Christ’s 
appearing in the realms of death and preaching 
to them repentance and faith, the declaration 
that was to be published to them was as it were 
thus: ‘‘You haye merited death both as to the 
body and to the soul, because of your disobedience 
you perished in the flood and were brought to 
this subterranean place of confinement; but a way 
of salvation has now been opened for you, so that 
you may live in the spirit as to God, according 
to the will of God.” This declaration, on the one 
hand, must have produced a painful impression 
upon them, but on the other, encouraged them to 
accept the offered salvation. However we are 
not informed whether few or many [or any.—M. ] 
did thereby attain unto spiritual life. The ap- 
position beginning with iva relates not to v. 5, but 
to ch. iii. 19, thereby shedding more light on 
the latter passage. How forced, as contrasted 
with this exposition, is that of Hofmann, that 
salyation was published to the dead in order that 
they might secure a life surviving the judgment 
of death which they have incurred and must con- 
tinue to incur, or that of Wiesinger, that the Gos- 
pel was preached to the dead for the purpose of 
shaping their condition so that, while on the one 
hand they are judged according to the flesh (the 
state of death viewed asa continuing judgment ac- 
cording to the flesh), on the other they might be 
able through the judgment (Aorist) to attain, in 
God’s way, to the immortal life of the spirit. Nor 
is the view of Kénig more admissible, that in the 
resurrection their judgment in the body should 
consist in their receiving a less perfect resurrec- 
tion-body. For other expositions consult Steiger 


CHAPTER IV. 1-6. 


75 


and Wiesinger. [See also the Excursus on the 
Descensus ad Inferos at the end of the preceding 
section.—M. ] 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The common view, which is shared also by 
Gerlach, sees in vy. 1, the leading idea, that to 
the Christian, in virtue of the communion of his 
heart and life with Christ, suffering in the flesh 
is the dying of sin. So early an expositor as Jus- 
tin says: ‘‘Suffering and temptation, like a medi- 
cine, render man more free from his evil intent, 
and make him more sound.” Tauler: ‘What 
the fire is to iron, what the crucible is to cold, 
such is temptation to the righteous.” But this 
is introducing the Pauline doctrine of the com- 
munion of suffering with Christ, although the 
original contains no allusion to it; besides the 
circumstance is lost sight of, that the original 
says ‘‘whohath suffered,” not ‘‘ who is suffering.” 
According to the exposition given above, it should 
be the aim of believers not to let the sins of others 
find a point of support in themselves in order 
that not sinning after the example of Christ may 
become their second nature. 

2. The abuse which the ungodly cast on the 
former companions of their sin has its final rea- 
son in the circumstance that they feel themselves 
reproved, opposed and judged by their conver- 
sion. 

ὃ. Holy Scripture nowhere teaches the eternal 
damnation of those who died as heathens or non- 
Christians; it rather intimates in many passages 
that forgiveness may be possible beyond the grave, 
and refers the final decision not to death, but to 
the day of Christ, Acts xvii. 381; 2 Tim. i. 12; iv. 
8; 1 Jno. iv. 17. But in our passage, as in ch. 
ili. 19. 20, Peter by Divine illumination clearly 
affirms that the ways of God’s salvation do not 
terminate with earthly life, and that the Gospel 
is preached beyond the grave to those who have 
departed from this life without a knowledge of 
the same. But this proves neither the doctrine 
of universal recovery, even that of Satan, the 
devils and the ungodly, nor the doctrine of purga- 
tory to the cleansing of which the Romish Church 
affirms subjected all who reach the other world 
without being wholly purified, and further main- 
tains, that the stay in it may be shortened by the 
performance of many good works in this life and 
even after death by the performance of good works 
and prayers for the dead on the part of survivors. 
Gerlach cites a passage from John Damasc., in 
which the doctrine of the ancient Church on the 
subject of Christ’s descent into hell is summed 
up as follows: ‘His glorified soul descends into 
Hades in order that like as the Sun of righteous- 
ness did rise to men on earth, so in like manner 
He might shine on those who under the earth sit 
in darkness and in the shadow of death; in order 
that as He did publish peace to men on earth, 
gave deliverance to the captives and sight to the 
blind, and became the Cause of eternal salvation 
to believers, while He convicted the disobedient 
of unbelief, so in like manner He might deal with 
the inhabitants of Hades, so that to Him every 
Knee should bow of those who are in heaven, on 
earth and under the earth, and that having thus 


loosed the chains of those long-confined prisoners, 
He might return from the dead and prepare to 
us the way of the resurrection.” The divine 
truths contained in this passage may be abused 
against the cause of missions and the necessity 
of a holy life ; but abuse does not cancel the right 
use. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The Christian’s best armour against the as- 
saults of suffering is the believing, obedient and 
submissive mind of suffering in which Christ ac- 
cepted His suffering asa cup tendered by the 
paternal hand of God.—God’s chief design in 
sending suffering is to withdraw us from sin and 
the lusts of men up to Himself.—Sufferings under 
persecution and abuse are a means of purifying 
and refining.—Which are the dangers against 
which we ought to be especially armed under per- 
secutions for righteousness’ sake ?—Consider the 
comforting fact that Christ has suffered in the 
flesh for you. Look, 1. at His person; 2. at the 
greatness of His suffering in the flesh; 8. at His 
suffering for you; 4. at the result of it.—Preser- 
vatives against relapsing into heathenish ways: 
1. the communion with and conformity to Christ; 
2. frequent reflection on your former sinful con- 
dition; 8. the abuse of unbelievers; 4. the near- 
ness of the impending account to be rendered: 
5. prayer; 6. continuance in the communion of 
love with the brethren; 7. the founding of all 
your actions on the word and strength of God.— 
The unhappy consistency in the service of sin.— 
Will you continue in the service of sin, although 
Clirist came to save you?—The appearing of 
Christ among the dead is both the last degree of 
His condescension and the turning-point of His 
exaltation.—The mercy of God extends even to 
the judgment-prison of the realms of death.— 
Who will preach to the untold thousands, who 
after Christ’s descent into Hades have been born 
and have died without a knowledge of the Gos- 
pel?—Why should that fact not check, but rather 
strengthen missionary zeal? 

Srarke:—Shall the disciple be greater than 
his master, and the servant greater than his 
Lord? Be content, if in the world it fares with 
you as with your Saviour, it is enough that you 
shall be like Him in heaven. Matt. x. 24. 25.— 
Will you fret at sufferings and tribulations? If 
you knew the wholesomeness of this cup, you 
would joyfully empty it, Ezek. ii. 6.—The beloved 
cross is like strong salt: as the latter prevents 
corruption, so does the cross prevent the corrup- 
tion of the flesh, Ps. exix. 71.—Sin at a stand- 
still is the well-being of sinners, continuance in 
sin the strongest barrier against grace, the best 
repentance is never to sin.—Christianity renders 
the best service to the commonwealth, in that it 
most earnestly forbids the vices which are most 
dangerous to it.—The children of the world 
grieve most at your separating from their com- 
munion; by that they consider themselves put to 
shame and despised. Haughtiness and venomous 
malice are the sources of their abuse.—The re- 
membrance of the last day and its judgment 
ought to be to us a constant sermon on repent- 
ance, Eccl. xii. 18. 14; 2 Cor. v. 10. 


76 


Lisco:—The blessed effect of suffering.—The 
Lord’s miracles of grace in His kingdom. The 
sufferings of Christ present us with a strong mo- 
tive to arm ourselves with His mind. 

[Pyruacoras:—Vex. 1. Summa religionis imitari 
quem colis.—M. } 

[Le1curon:—Love desires nothing more than 
likeness, and shares willingly in all with the 
party loved; and above all love, this Divine love 
is purest and highest and works most strongly 
that way, takes pleasure in that pain, and is a 
voluntary death, as Plato calls love.—M. ] 

[Arrerpury:—‘Forasmuch then as Christ 
hath suffered for us in the flesh, let us arm our- 
selves with the same mind,” with a resolution to 
imitate Him in His perfect submission and resig- 
nation of Himself to the Divine will and pleasure; 
in His contempt of all the enjoyments of sense, 
of all the vanities of this world, its allurements 
and terrors; in His practice of religious severi- 
ties; in His love of religious retirement; in 
making it His meat and drink, His only study 
and delight, ‘‘to work the work of Him that sent 
Him”; in His choosing for that end, when that 
end could not otherwise be obtained, want before 
abundance, shame before honour, pain before 
pleasure, death before life; and in His preferring 
always a laborious uninterrupted practice of vir- 
tue to a life of rest and ease and indolence.—M. ] 

[Bencen:—Ver. 2. ‘ βιῶσαι. Aptum verbum; 
non dicitur de brutis.’’—M. ] 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


“a 


[Aveustine:—Perdit quod vivit, quite Deum non 
diligit; qui curat vivere, non propter te, Domine, 
nihil est et pro nihilo est; qui tibi vivere recusat mor- 
tuus est; qui tibi non sapit, desipit—M. ] 

[Lercuron:—Politic men have observed, that 
in states, if alterations must be, it is better to al- 
ter many things than a few. And physicians 
have the same remark for one’s habit and custom 
for bodily health upon the same ground, because 
things do so relate one to another, that except 
they be adapted and suited together in the change, 
it avails not; yea, it sometimes proves the worse 
in the whole, though a few things in particular 
seem to be bettered. Thus, half reformations in 
a Christian, turn to his prejudice; it is only best 
to be thoroughly reformed, and to give up with 
all idols; not to live one half to himself and the 
world and, as it were, another half to God; for 
that is but falsely so and in reality it cannot be. 
The only way is to make a heap of all, to have 
all sacrificed together, and to live to no lust, but 
altogether and only to God.—M. } 

[Illustration of verses ὃ and 4. The poet says 
of the orgies of Bacchus :— 


“ Turba ruunt; mixteque viris, matresque nurusque 
Vulgusque, proceresque ignota ad sacra feruntur 
Quis furor— 

Feminez voces, et mota insania vino 
Obscenique greges, et inania tympana.” 


Ov, Met. 3, 529, etc. —M.]} 


CHAPTER IV. 7-11. 


ANALysIs :—Exhortation, in contemplation of the approaching end of all things, to watch and pray, to love and to do, to 
serve others with the gifts they have received, and in a word to seek in everything the glory of God. 


7 But the end of all things is at hand: "be ye therefore sober, and watch unto 
8 prayer? And above all things have fervent charity among ‘yourselves: for charity 
9 shall cover‘ the multitude of sins. Use hospitality’ one to another® without grudging. 


10 *As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good 
11 stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, /et him speak: as the oracles 
of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability* which God giveth; that 
God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ: to whom be *praise and do- 
minion for ever and ever. Amen.” 
Verse 7. Πσωφρονήσατε-εθο temperate, of atemperate mind; ν ἡ yare=be sober.—M.] 
"εἰς τὰς προσευχάς; (τάς is omitted in A. B. and by Lachmann;) also in Cod. Sin —M.] 
Verse 8. [8 Translate: “ Above all things having love intense towards one another;” on ἐκτεν ἢ seech. i. 22.—M.] 


[4xadvnrrec, A.B. K, Lachmann and Tischendorf, also Alford: καλύψει L. Receptus, is the more difficult 
reading.—a y 4 7 y»=love.—M. } 
Verse 9. [5 6ctAGEevoc—hospitable.—M. 
Ὁ ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ, A.B. Cod. Sinait., Lachm., Tisch., Alford. γογγυσμῶν, Rec. K.L. Translate: 
“without murmnring,” so German.—M.] 
Verse 10. (7 Translate: “ Bach man, as he has received a gift of grace.”—M.] 
Verse 11. [8 ὡς ἐξ ἰσχύος ἧς χορηγεῖ ὁ Oeds—“as out of the power which God bestoweth,” so German, Van 
Ess, Allioli and others.—M.] 
" éaotiv=ts, not δε.---Μ.] 
0 Translate: “Lo whom is the glory and the power (or might) to the ages of the ages. Amen.”—M.] 


dead; here begins also a new series of exhorta- 
tions closely connected with the thought of the 
end of all things. It has been shown that Peter 

Ver. 7. The connection is with ver. 5; the | in common with the other Apostles, Jas. v. 7. 8. 
Apostle takes up and further enforces the thought | 9; Jude 18; 1 Jno. ii. 18; Rev. i. 8; xxii. 10: 
that the Lord is ready to judge the living and the | 1 Thess. iv. 17; Rom, xiii, 11. 12; 1 Cor. xv 


EXEGETICAL AND CKITICAL. 


CHAP. IV. 7—11. 


77 


51; 2 Cor. vy. 2; Phil. iv. 5, expected that the 
second advent of Christ and the end of the whole 
present dispensation were nearly impending, cf. 
Chit. Sve 1 19... 1. ἦν ιν :. 2 Pet, 111. 10, 
-11; Mtt. xxiv. 6. This may be accounted for by 
the fact that the coming of Christ in the flesh is 
the beginning of the world’s last period, during 
which no further revelation of grace is to be 
expected; andthataccording to the mind of Jesus, 
His disciples ought to consider His second com- 
ing as always close at hand, and to be prepared 
for it. ‘‘It ought to be the chief concern of be- 
lievers to fix their minds fully on His second 
advent.” Calvin. ‘We live in the latter half 
of the world’s period, which will quickly flow 
on. Although we may not live to see it, after 
death we shall realize that we are near it.”’ Roos. 
It is however to be remembered that nothing but 
the long-suffering of God is arresting the judg- 
ment, and that He is counting by the measure of 
eternity, according to which a thousand years 
are as one day (2 Pet. iii. 8; Ps. xc. 4). [The 
emphasis of πάντων is noteworthy. Bengel; ‘‘inis 
adeoque etiam petulantize malorum et passionum pio- 
rum.”—M.] 

Be temperate therefore and sober unto 
prayers.—As our Lord in contemplation of His 
day exhorts the disciples, Lke. xxi. 34, ‘‘Take 
heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be 
overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, 
and cares of this life,” so the Apostle here ex- 
horts us to σωφρονξιν —to act wisely, to be tem- 
perate and modest. It primarily denotes bodily 
temperance, then mental discretion and watch- 
fulness, cf. ch. vy. 8; Rom. xii. 8; 2 Cor. v. 13; 
Tit. ii. 0.-- νήφειν --ἰο live soberly, moderately 
both bodily and mentally as inch. 1. 18. ‘‘Tem- 
perance facilitates vigilance, and both aid 
prayer.” Bengel.—eic τὰς προσευχάς, the Plural, 
because, as Huss remarks, there are different 
kinds of prayer and because prayer ought to be 
without ceasing. The reference is probably to 
fixed, regular prayers of the Church. 

Ver. 8. Then follows the still more important 
exhortation to brotherly love according to its 
real nature, cf. on éxrevy ch. i. 22; 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 
etc.; xiv. 1. Itis the mother of all the duties 
toour neighbour. Where love is wanting, prayer 
is hindered. 

Because love covereth a multitude of 
Sins.—xka2inber πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν. The words are 
cited from the Hebrew not from the LXX. of 
Prov. x. 12, ef. ch. xvii. 9, but the former pas- 
sage reads: ‘‘Hatred stirreth up strifes, but love 
covereth all sins’; and the latter: ‘“‘He that 
covereth transgression, seeketh love.” In both 
instances the reference is to human love which 
is to consign to oblivion the sins of others. Some 


see in MDD a reference to Gen. ix. 23, and 


consider it an easy thing; so Cesarius of Arles 
says: ‘There is nothing more easy than covering 
oneself or others with clothes.” But forgiveness 
is hardly so easy a task. It is better to explain 
it of the unsightliness of sin which forgiveness 
covers up. The old Protestant expositors un- 
derstand it therefore rightly of human love par- 
doning the sin of our neighbour. ‘The covering 
up relates to man not to God. Nothing can 
cover thy sin before God except faith. But my 


love covers my neighbour’s sin, and just as God 
covers my sin if I believe, so ought I also to 
cover the sin of my neighbour.” Luther. So 
also Steiger, Hoffman, Lechler, Wiesinger and 
Weiss. Even Estius, the Romish expositor, ad- 
mits that the quotation sustains the Protestant 
exposition. But many Romanist and rational- 
istic expositors explain the passage of merjt and 
atoning virtue, which they ascribe to the love of 
our neighbour. Some quote Matt. vi. 14. 15, 
but that passage simply affirms that forgiveness 
is made possible, not that it is positively effected. 
Others, with reference to Jas. y. 20, suggest an 
activity tending to improvement [that of others, 
—M.], but this is foreign to our passage. ὅτι 
seems however to conflict with our exposition, 
but its design is to give the reason for the éxré- 
νεία of love. ‘The Apostle takes for granted 
that Christians love one another, still he recom- 
mends them to expand and increase in the broth- 
erly love which they have, because true love 
forgives a multitude of sins.” 1 Cor. xiii. 4-7; 
Matt. xviii. 22. Steiger. According to Beza the 
connection is: ‘‘Love one another, because love, 
as the Scripture says, removes the substance of 
strife.” Calov remarks on this covering of sin, 
that it does not do away with the correcting of 
our neighbour, Matt. xviii. 15, and that it is ne- 
cessary to distinguish public and private sins, 
between known and concealed sins. [Alford 
thinks that the meaning is the hiding of offences 
both from one another and in God’s sight, by 
mutual forbearance and forgiveness. He adyo- 
cates to take the passage in its widest sense, 
‘understanding it primarily of forgiveness but 
then also of that prevention of sin by kindli- 
ness of word and deed, and also that intercession 
for sin in prayer, which are the constant fruits 
of fervent love. It is a truth from which we 
need not shrink, that every sin which love hides 
from man’s sight is hidden in God’s sight also. 
There is but One efficient cause of the hiding of 
sin: but mutual love applies that cause: draws 
the universal cover over the particular sin. This 
meaning, as long as it is not perverted into the 
thought that love towards others covers a man’s 
own sin ‘ex promerito’ need not and should not 
be excluded.” —M. ] 

[ Wordsworth: ‘St. Peter had spoken of love, 
stretching itself out without interruption; and 
the passage James συ. 20, considered together 
with the context here, where St. Peter is pre- 
senting Christ as their Example, may suggest a 
belief, that he is comparing the act of Love to 
that of the Cherubim stretching out their wings 
on the Mercy Seat, and forming a part of the 
Mercy Seat (Ex. xxv. 18-20), the emblem of 
Christ’s propitiatory covering of sins.” —M.] 

Ver. 9. Be hospitable towards one an- 
other without murmuring.—Cf. Rom. xii. 
13; Heb. xiii. 2; 3 Jno. 5; 1 Tim. v. 10; Tit. i. 
8. ‘Peter remembers to have heard this saying 
from the lips of Christ, Matt. xxv. 35; he does 
not mean pompous hospitality, Lke. xiv. 12, but 
that Christian, holy hospitality which readily 
welcomes by the promptings of pure love needy 
strangers, especially such as are exiled on ac- 
count of their confession of the true religion, 
gives them gentle and loving treatment, and cares 
for them as members of Christ and fellow-citi- 


78 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


ee 


zens of the Church.” Gerhard. ‘Let us take 
heed lest, having been hard and careless in en- 
tertaining strangers, the shelter of the just may 
be denied us after this life.” Ambrose.—dvev 
γογγυσμῶν, without expressions of murmuring by 
which one secretly gives vent to his displeasure 
or reproaches another with the benefits he has 
received. The opposite is a cheerful, pure and 
unselfish spirit, Rom. xii. 8; 2 Cor. ix. 7. [Ne- 
ander Ch. Hist. 1. pp. 847. 348, referring to Ter- 
tullian, ad uxorem, 11. 1. 8.; de jejunio, ὁ. XII: 
“The care of providing for the support and 
maintenance of strangers, of the poor, the sick, 
the old, of widows and orphans, and of those in 
prison on account of their faith, devolved on 
the whole Church. This was one of the main 
purposes for which the collection of voluntary 
contributions, in the assemblies convened for 
public worship, was instituted; and the charity 
of individuals, moreover, led them to emulate 
each other in the same good work. In particu- 
lar, it was considered as belonging to the office 
of the Christian matron to provide for the poor, 
for the brethren languishing in prison, and to 
show hospitality to strangers. The hindrance 
occasioned to this kind of Christian activity, is 
reckoned by Tertullian among the disadvantages 
of a mixed marriage. ‘What heathen,’ says he, 
‘will suffer his wife to go about from one street 
to another, to the house of strangers, to the 
meanest hovels indeed, for the purpose of visit- 
ing the brethren? What heathen will allow her 
to steal away into the dungeon, to kiss the chain 
of the martyr? Ifa brother arrive from abroad, 
what reception will he meet in the house of the 
stranger? If an alms is to be bestowed, store- 
house and cellar are shut fast!’ On the other 
hand, he counts it among the felicities of a mar- 
riage contracted between Christians, that the 
wife is at liberty to visit the sick and relieve the 
needy, and is never straitened or perplexed in 
the bestowment of her charities. Nor did the 
active brotherly love of each community confine 
itself to what transpired in its own immediate 
circle, but extended itself also to the wants of 
Christian communities in distant lands. On ur- 
gent occasions of this kind, the bishops made 
arrangements for special collections. They ap- 
pointed fasts; so that what was saved, even by 
the poorest of the flock, from their daily food, 
might help to supply the common wants.’’—M. ] 

Ver. 10. Bach man, as he receiveda gift 
of grace.—Grotius rightly expounds this not 
only of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, 1 Cor. 
xii. 4, ete., but also of gifts of the body and es- 
tate. These are as well gifts of grace as those. 
Natural endowments also are included in the 
expression. The Apostle does not refer to spe- 
cific official duties and the qualifications neces- 
sary to their discharge; he is unwilling to exact 
too much from and to impose too much on be- 
lievers. 

Even so minister to one another as 
good stewards of the manifold grace of 
God.—aird διακονοῦντες, cf. ch. i. 12, to offer 
something as a servant. The term comprises 
the different duties of the Church which are not 
specifically committed to the pastoral office as 
such, and which are the outgoings of voluntary 
activity. 


As good stewards.—dc denotes not only 
mere resemblance, but, as frequently, the gene- 
rally known reason [as is becoming, fit in good 
stewards.—M.]. Christians are not owners, but 
only stewards of their goods and gifts, 1 Cor. iv. 
2; Matt. xxv. 14; Tit. ὃ. 7.—Manifold, because 
exhibited in various gifts of grace [cf. 1 Cor. 
xii. 4; Matt. xxy. 15, Lke. xix. 18.—M.]. “We 
are liberal not with our own goods, but with that 
of another.” Gerhard. 

Ver. 11. If any man speak - - as of the 
power which God bestoweth.—Peter speci- 
fies two kinds of gifts, gifts relating to speaking 
and gifts relating to doing, gifts of teaching and 
exhorting, and gifts of outward service.— These 
gifts they were to use with humility and fidelity. 
λαλεῖν here denotes every kind of speaking and 
exhortation in the Lord’s name, Rom. xii. 6-8; 
1 Cor. xii. 8. 10.—Adya properly signifies Divine 
utterances, oracles, but here the revealed word 
of God, 1 Cor. ii. 7; Acts vii. 88; Heb. v. 12; 
Rom. iii. 2. Let him speak with the conviction 
and reverence, with the earnestness and humility 
which flow from the consciousness: it is God’s 
holy word to which, as a mean instrument, I lend 
my mouth, 1 Cor. xii. 8; 2 Cor. ii. 17; 1 Thess. 
ii. 18.—dvaxovet applies here to the manifold -of- 
fices belonging to the single or married estate, 
Acts vi. 1,2. [But see Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28. 
—M.] ἰσχύς the act springs from the power of 
God [as from a fountain.—M.] which He sup- 
plies. The term relates to powers of the body 
as well as to those of the mind. χορηγεῖντεεπαρέ- 
yew, διδόναι. [The primary sense and origin of 
the word is Classical, and denotes ‘‘to defray the 
cost of bringing out a chorus’’, thence to fur- 
nish supply in general.—M.]. ‘Let each man 
apply to his neighbour all the good in his power 
with the utmost humility, knowing that of him- 
self (" e.,without God’s supplying.—M.] he can- 
not have any thing to apply.” [Wordsworth: 
This precept of St. Peter deserves the consid- 
eration of those who claim to be his successors, 
and profess great reverence for his authority, 
and yet derogate from the dignity of the oracles 
of God, and set up oracles of their own, in place 
of the Scriptures and against them. See 2 Tim. 
iv. ὃ. Rev. xi. 8-10.—M.]. Bede. 

That God in all things—to the ages of 
the ages.—iva, the aim and end of all the 
Apostle’s exhortations.—év πᾶσι may mean, in 
all of you or in all your doings; the latter is 
preferable. ‘As through Christ all benefits de- 
scend upon us from God, so also ought we in hum- 
ble gratitude to refer all things through Christ 
tothe glory of God.” Gerhard. δοξάζηται, the 
honour should be ascribed to Him for whatever is 
done in the Church, He should be praised for it, 
ef. Heb. xiii. 15. Everything is mediated through 
Christ, through whom we receive all the power 
we have.— ᾧ éoriv ἡ δόξα; ᾧ refers to ὁ Θεός as in 
ch. v. 11, because God has already been named 
as the subject of adoration, and because Peter ἢ 
elsewhere calls Jesus «kbpcoc—Jehovah, but not 
absalutely God.—On δόξα see ch. i. 7.—kpdrog 
goes back to ἰσχύς. All power among men is the 
emanation of His power, ef. ch. ν. 11.—ei¢ τοὺς 
αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, οἵ. Phil. iv. 20.---ἀμήν, not a 
note of conclusion, but an expression of assu- 
rance of heart. 


CHAP. IV. 7-11. 


79 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The doctrine of the consummation of all 
things on the coming of Christ, which is pecu- 
liarly prominent in the writings of Peter, con- 
tains the most powerful reasons for our encour- 
agement and consolation. They make no men- 
tion of the distinction between the first and still 
impending coming for the establishment of the 
kingdom of glory and the judgment of a corrupt 
Christendom and the coming for the final judg- 
ment: that distinction was reserved for special 
revelations made to St. John. 

2. The love covering sins, which is here so 
emphatically recommended, is widely removed 
from the laxity, weakness and want of principle 
with which it is frequently confounded, The 
latter, says Wiesinger, ignores the sacred earnest- 
ness of love and fancies to do some great thing 
by putting some deceptive boards over ‘graves 
full of mouldering decay and crying, Peace, 
peace! Hatred which unsparingly uncovers in 
its effects is preferable to love which thus covers 
up. The love here insisted upon has these char- 
acteristics, itis not put to anger by insults, it 
does not discover needlessly the sins of others 
and does not by revenge or passionate reproaches 
drag them forth into the light of rebuke. 

8. The opinion that the love of our neighbour 
covers our sins before God conflicts with the fun- 
damental principles of the Gospel; it is not the 
cause, but only one of the conditions on which 
we are made partakers of Divine forgiveness, 
Mtt. vi. 14. 

4. With respect to God, we are stewards of 
goods committed to our keeping, with respect to 
our neighbour only we are owners. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The end of all things, how it should minister 
to, 1, encouragement, 2, warning, 3, consolation. 
—Whatsoever thou takest in hand, remember the 
end, Sir. vii. 836.—If Peter more than eighteen 
centuries ago was permitted to say the end of all 
things was at hand, how much more ought we 
to be prepared, to watch and pray. We should 
ever consider the great day of Christ to be near 
at hand. Believers wait for it as a bridegroom 
waits for his bride. The end of the way and the 
nearness of home is sweet and comforting to 
strangers and pilgrims.—Communion with God, 
the most precious enjoyment of earth, is only 
possible to those who are temperate and sober. 
—He that ministers to sensuality cannot soar in 
thought to God.—Love should be like fire which 
spreads its flame afar, and like a cloak which 
covers much. ‘That godly father would not 
shut his door to any poor guest, for I am afraid, 
said he, lest the Lord Himself might some day 
come, in the guise of a poor man, to test my lib- 
erality: how could I ever justify my having suf- 
fered Him sadly to depart from me?” 

Brsser: There is none so poor as to be unable 
to serve his neighbour with some gift.—God dis- 
tributes His gifts unequally, Mtt. xxv. 15. Mo- 
ses has five talents, Aaron two, Jethro only one. 
Let eachsuse his gifts to the glory of God, and 
he will stand before God and men. 


Hersercer: The Christian’s motto: Faith- 
ful and only faithful!—A Christian’s any and 
every work, should be a Divine service and con- 
duce to the glory of God. 

Starke: Men, beware of confidence! be ready 
that you may be able to stand worthily before the 
Son of Man, 2 Pet. iii. 11—Love has the first 
place among all virtues and is the first mark of 
the disciples of Christ, 1 Cor. xiii. 18; Jno. xiii. 
35.—To give unwillingly and regretfully is to sin 
more than to do good, 2 Cor. ix. 7.—As among 
flowers the form and beauty of each differ from 
those of others, so among the children of God is 
seen the manifold goodness of God.—God has 
given to one something, but not everything, that 
we might serve one another, and that none 
should bury his talent, Gal. vy. 18.—Are graces 
and gifts thine own? Who has granted them to 
thee? God. To what end? To parade them 
off? By no means, but to serve Him and thy 
neighbour with them. Love makes thee thy 
neighbour’s servant. The more thou hast re- 
ceived, the more thou hast to communicate in 
counsel and in deed, 1 Cor. ix. 19.—If thou hast 
nothing wherewith to serve thy neighbour, thou 
surely canst pray for him. Discharge this ser- 
vice of love with hearty cheerfulness; it is, if 
not better than, at least as good as pieces of gold, 
Rom. x. 1; Acts iii. 6. [But prayer—instead 
of ministering to the wants of the needy—where 
the ability is present and the occasion requires it 
—is sheer hypocrisy.—M.]. The glory of God 
should be the end and aim of all our works, oth- 
erwise they are good for nothing, 1 Cor. x. 31. 

Lisco: What does qualify us to receive the 
gifts of the Holy Ghost?—The conditions of real 
prayer. 

Hurpereer: How should a good Christian, 
who desires to go to heaven acquit himself, 1, 
towards God, 2, towards his neighbour, 3, with 
respect to his own conscience, soul and office? 

Strer: How Christians ought to prepare for 
the end of all things, or how we must live here 
in time in order that we may stand in the lust 
judgment? 

Karrr: Spiritual ascension, 1, By whom and 
how it is accomplished, 2, What are its effects on 
our earthly life? 

Sraupt: Christian: mutual readiness to oblige, 
1, its ability, 2, its opportunities, ὃ, the condi- 
tion necessary for its discharge. 

[Lericuton:—Ver. 7. It is reported of one 
that, hearing the 5th of Genesis read so long 
lived, and yet the burden still, they died; Enos 
lived 905 and he died, Seth 912 and he died, Me- 
thusaleh 969 and he died, he took so deep the 
thought of death and eternity, that it changed 
his whole frame and set him from a yoluptuous 
to a most strict and pious course of life. 

Ver. 8. Love is witty in finding out the fairest 
construction of things doubtful.—Where the 
thing is so plainly a sin, that this way of cover- 
ing it can have no place, yet then will love con- 
sider what will lessen it most.—All private re- 
proofs and where conscience requires public 
delation and censure, even these will be sweet- 
ened in that compassion that flows from love.— 
If thou be interested in the offence, even by un- 
feigned free forgiveness, so far as thy concern 
goes, let it be as if it had not been. 


80 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


Ver. 9. Now for supply of our brethren’s ne- 
cessities, one good help is, the retrenching of 
our superfluities. Turn the stream into that 
channel, where it will refresh thy brethren and 
enrich thyself, and let it not run into the dead 
sea.—As the disease of the youth of the world, 
was the abounding of lust, Gen. vi, so of its age, 
decay of love: and as that heat called for a total 
deluge of waters, to this coldness for fire, to the 
kindling an universal fire, that shall make an 
end of it and the world together. (Agua propter 
ardorem libidinis, ignis propter teporem charitatis. ) 

Ver. 10. Manifold grace.—There is such an 
admirable beauty in this variety, such a sym- 
metry and contemperature of different, yea of 
contrary qualities, as speaks His riches, that so 
divers gifts are from the same Spirit. A kind of 
embroidering of many colours (see Ps. exxxix. 15) 
happily mixed, as the word ποικίλλειν signifies; 
as it is in the frame of the natural body of man 
as the lesser world, and in the composure of the 
greater world: thus in the Church of God, the 
mystical body of Jesus Christ exceeding both the 
former in excellence and beauty.—Be not dis- 
couraged, to have little in the account shall be 
no prejudice. The approbation runs not, thou 


hadst much, but on the contrary, thou hast been 
faithful in little; great faithfulness in the use of 
small gifts hath great acceptance, and a great 
and sure reward. 

Ver. 11. Ministers must speak faithfully, ho- 
lily and wisely.—Faith’s great work is to re- 
nounce self-power and to bring in the power of 
God to be ours . . . When I am weak, then am 
I strong, 2 Cor. xii. 10.—This is the Christian’s 
aim, to have nothing in himself, nor in anything 
but in this tenure: all for the glory of my God, 
my estate, family, abilities, my whole self, all I 
have andam. And as the love of God grows in 
the heart, this purpose grows; the higher the 
flame rises, the purer it is; the eye is daily more 
upon it; it is oftener in the mind in all actions 
than before. In common things, the very works 
of our calling, our very refreshments, to eat and 
drink and sleep, all are for this end and with a 
particular aim at it as much as may be; even the 
thought of it often renewed throughout the day, 
and at times generally applied to all our ways 
and employments. It is that elixir that turns 
thy ordinary works into gold, into sacrifices, by 
a touch of it.—M.] 


CHAPTER IV. 12-19. 


ANALYsIs :—Further exhortation to readiness of suffering and becoming conduct in suffering. They are to consider suffer- 
ing as inseparable from following Christ, as necessary to their trial, and instrumental toward their future glory, as 


rendering them partakers of the power of the Spirit, and as delivering them from the last judgment. 


But they 


should never lose sight of maintaining their difference from unbelievers. 


12 


Beloved, ' think it not strange concerning *the fiery trial which is to try you, *as 


13 though some strange thing ‘happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are par- 
takers® of Christ’s sufferings; ‘that when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad 


14 also *with exceeding joy. 


*If ye be reproached for ’the name of Christ, happy™ 


are ye; * for the Spirit of glory and™ of God resteth upon you: “on their part he is 


15 evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. 


1 But let none of you suffer as a mur- 


16 derer, or as a thief, or as an evil doer, or as a “busybody in other men’s matters. Yet 
if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God 


17 "on this behalf. 


For the time 7s come that judgment must begin at the house of 


God: “and if ὦ first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gos- 


18 pel of God? 


19 the sinner appear? 


And if the righteous *scarcely be saved", where shall the ungodly and 
Wherefore, “let them that suffer according to the will of God 


commit the keeping of their souls ¢o him in well doing, “as unto a faithful Creator.” 


Verse 12. Π μὴ ξενίζεσθε, Pass., see v. 4, “be not astonished at.” 


_ tive, see Winer, p, 222.—M.] 


On the construction of this Verb with the Da- 


2rvpwocs, literally, burning, figuratively, trial by fire; the rendering of E. V. must be regarded as very 
ρ J 7, iguratively 


felicitous. πρὸς πειρασμὸν ὑμῖν 


ytvouweévy—which is taking place among you (or as Alford 


renders, “in your case”’) for a trial to you.—M.] 


8 & sas if—M. 


4Edvovu συμβαίνοντος tuivex“ some strange thing were happening to you.—M.]) 
Verse 13. [ὃ καθὸ is supported by A. B. K. L., Rec. and many others; καθὼς, a less authentic reading; translate “in 
as far as,” (Alford) or “in the degree to which ” (German); ef. Rom. viii. 26; 2 Cor. viii. 12—M.) 
δ κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς K. τ΄ Aw“ ye are partakers with the sufferings of Christ.”—M.] 
7 Translate, “In order that ye may also at (in) the revelation of his glory rejoice.’—M.] 


Sa 


adAcwopmevoveexulting, Participle.—M.] 


Verse 14. [9 “ If ye are reproached,” εἰ with Indicative. —M.] 
%€v ὀνόματι-ἷπ the name of Christ, cf. Matt. v.11; ch. iii. 14.—M.] ; 


ἢ μακάριοι--ὈἹοκβοῦ are ye.—M.] 


2 Or t=because, it gives the reason why they are blessed.—M.] 


CHAPTER IV. 12-19. 


81 


[3 On the Article with attributives, see Winer, p. 144. Translate: “the Spirit of glory, and that of God ”—“ the 


Spirit of Glory, who is none else than God’s Spirit Himself.” 


For classical illustrations, see Winer.—M. ] 


[A. (Griesbach, Scholz and Lachmann insert after δόξης, καὶ Suvapews); 50 Sinait.; but (Tischendorf 


rejects the addition).—M. } 


Πεκατὰ μὲν αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖται, κατὰ δὲύὑμᾶς δοξάζεται. This clause stands in Recept., 
K. L. and others,] but is wanting in A. B., Sinaitic. and many MSS. Lachmann and Tischendorf, also 


Alford reject it. 
Verse 15. [15 y ἃ p=for—M. ] 


[It is in all probability a gloss.—M.] 


θϑάλλοτριοεπίσκοπος,ἃ ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, denoting “overseeing other people’s affairs, prying into 
them.” Alford: “ Pryer into other men’s matters.” De Wette: “an impertinent;” but see note below. 


—M. 


Versel6. Π ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τουτῷ. Rec. reads μέρει instead of ὀνόματι, with K. L.; but the former reading 
has more weighty authorities, and is sustained by Lachmann, Tischendorf and Alford. Translate: “in 
this name,” ὦ. ¢., the name of χριστιανός.--Μ.] 

Verse l7. Π8 ὅτι ὁ katpos—=because it is the season, Alford; (because) it is time, German.—M.] 

[19 Translate: “of the judgment beginning at the house of God, but if (it begin) first at us, what (will be) 
the end of them that are disobedient to the Gospel of God?”—M.} 

Verse 18. [29 4 6A vs=with difficulty, hardly (German).—M.] 

[.ow¢erac=is saved. Translate, to bring out the force of the Greek: “ the ungodly and the sinner where 


shall he appear?” Alford.—M.] 


Verse 19. [22 ὥστε καὶ «x. τ. A-—wherefore let also them who suffer, etc.—M. 
23 Tischendorf reads aya@o7ovcta, a more authentic reading than ἀγαθοποιΐαις. 
24 ὡς is omitted in A. B., Sinait., and by Lachmann [and Alford; it is inserted in Rec., with K. L. and oth- 


ers.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


The exhortations to readiness of suffering are 
repeated, but urged on different grounds. 

Ver. 12. Beloved.—This address, as in ch. 
ii. 11, denotes the Apostle’s heart-felt sympathy 
with them in the sufferings concerning which he 
is consoling them. 

Be not astonished at.—‘“If the heathen 
think the behaviour of Christians strange, Chris- 
tians need not be surprised if unbelievers perse- 
cute them on that account,” ch. i. 7, Steiger.— 
τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει. mbpworc—=burning, ignition, 
kindling, fire while burning, from πυροῦμαι, 2 
Pet. ii. 12; Rev. xviii. 9; Proy. xxvii. 21; LXX. 
Zech. xiii. 9. It isa simile of great tribulations, 
which burn like fire, but conduce to proof.— 
[Cf. also Ps. Ixvi. 10in LXX. Oecumenius says, 
πύρωσιν τὰς θλίψεις εἰπών, ἐνέφῃνεν ὡς διὰ δοκιμασίαν 
αὐτοῖς αὗται.----Μ.1 εν ὑμῖν may mean “which 
you feel within yourselves,” better, ‘‘ which is 
among you.”—‘‘As the potter or the goldsmith 
adjusts the furnace to the earthen vessel or to the 
gold, so that it be neither too hot nor too cold, so 
God adjusts temptation (trial) to the strength of 
man and to the grace which He grants him, and 
suffers him not to be tempted beyond his ability 
to bear.” Ephrem.—zpoc¢ πειρασμόν, ef. ch. i. 7; 
Jas. i. 2. Not unto perdition, but unto salvation. 
Even this moderates the pain of the heat.—déc 
févov.—Perhaps you consider the suffering acci- 
dental, interfering with God’s purpose concern- 
ing you, and putting you back in your Christian- 
ity, but know that it has been decreed from all 
eternity, it has been repeatedly foretold in the 
Scrij.tures, it has been the common experience of 
all believers from the beginning, and it is abso- 
lutely necessary for the mortification of the old 
man. That cannot be displeasing which is dealt 
by the hand of a friend.” Gerhard. 

Ver. 13. In as faras ye are partakers with 
the sufferings of Christ.—xaé κοινῶνειτε.--- 
It is a great consolation that the believer is 
permitted to consider his sufferings as a partak- 
ing with the sufferings of Christ; but it isa great- 
er consolation that he is permitted to infer his 
communion with the glory of Christ from his 
communion with His sufferings. καθὸ denotes, at 
once the reason and the measure of the suffer- 
ings. 


The sufferings of Christ, as in ch. i. 11; 
ef. ch. 11. 21; iii. 18, not such as affect Him in 
His members, but such as He Himself endured 
in the days of His incarnation. Christians par- 
take with them, if, for the sake of truth and 
righteousness, their experience of the world’s 
sin is similar to that of Christ. They are in 
Christ, and the hatred shown to them is really 
shown to Him, cf. Rom. viii. 17. 29; 2 Tim. ii. 11. 

That ye may also at the revelation of His 
glory rejoice, exulting.—ina καί, otherwise 
the day of the revelation of Christ would be to 
you a day of terror.—xai, as you now rejoice al- 
ready in hope.—r7c¢ δόξης, in contrast with the 
darkness of suffering, ch. i. 5. 7. 11.---χαρῆτε 
ἀγαλλιώμενοι, cf. ch. i. 8. ‘¢The joy ofthe saints 
will be inward and outward, bodily and spiritu- 
al.” Huss. The connection is, as given by Weiss: 
Only he who suffers with Christ and for His cause, 
is a true disciple of Christ. Such an one may 
cherish the expectation of the heavenly reward 
of partaking with His glory, even as Christ has 
promised again and again, Matt. x. 38. 89; xvi. 
24, 25; Lke. ix. 29. 24; xiv. 27; Jno. xii. 26; 
xiv. 3; xvil. 24; Matt. v. 12; Lke. vi. 22. 23. 
The real life-communion with Christ, as we find 
it described in the writings of Paul, is not affirmed 
here. 

Ver. 14. If ye are reproached in (German, 
for) the name of Christ.—év ὀνόματι. ὄνομα, 


often like my =revealed being (revelation of 


the being, 7. ¢., nature and existence). Jno. xvii. 
Θ᾽ ΘΟ. ΤΙ ΠΕ Act seit Gsm ν {Ἀ: ἘΠῚ ἢ 19. 
also=order,command. Herein its proper sense 
—the name and whatever it involves. Mk. ix. 
41 contains the best key to the exposition. The 
passage reads: ‘‘For whosoever shall give youa 
cup of water to drink in my name, because ye 
belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall 
not lose his reward.” As the benefactions of 
others may be the result ef their belonging to 
Christ, so it may be with their hatred. They re- 
proach you because you confess, call upon and 
bear the name of Christ, which they hate, ef. v. 
16. ὡς χριστιανός, and Matt. v. 11; Lke. vi. 22. 
Christ is to the world a hateful name; if one 
preaches it, he must suffer. The reproaches cast 
at their persons and conversation probably pro- 
ceeded from unbelieving Jews, who blasphemed 


| the name of Christ, Jas. ii. 7. 


82 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


Blessed are ye—resteth upon you.—vya- 
κάριοι, of. ch. iii. 14, Their state of bliss is in- 
ferred from the glory already existing, although 
invisible to ordinary eyes. τὸ τῆς d6&y¢—Spirit 
of glory denotes the Holy Spirit, because, as Ca- 
ἸΟῪ explains it, He brings glory and seals it in 
suffering. This Spirit being given to you with 
the communion of Christ, you are even now, by 
faith and hope, partakers of future glory, you 
anticipate it in the Spirit, and therefore you are 
blessed, cf. ch. i. 8. Hence Paul, in the further 
development of this thought, called the Spirit the 
earnest of the inheritance, Eph. i. 14.—xai τὸ 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, this second predicate is added by way 
of explanation. It is not the spirit of Elijah, or 
of an angel, but the Spirit of God. ‘This is to 
the Apostle so great and so blessed a thing, that 
though the world is against them, God is for them, 
as their shield and exceeding great reward.” 
Wiesinger. ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς dvaraierac.—The reference 
appears to be to Is. xi. 2; οἵ, 2 Kings ii. 15. Lke. 
x. 6. ἐπί, with the Accus., denotes the descent 
of the Spirit on them.-—avaratecSa, according 
to Olshausen, contains the idea of an abiding 
that cannot be overthrown, even by doubts and 
temptations. It is cognizable to those whose 
spiritual vision has been rendered acute, and is 
evinced chiefly in a meek spirit of suffering. 

[Wordsworth:—‘‘The glory and happiness of 
suffering for God in the jire of persecution might 
also well occur to his mind at Babylon, where he 
is writing, and where he would be cheered by a 
remembrance of the three faithful children walk- 
ing unhurt in the fiery furnace with the Son of 
God. (Dan. iii. 1-25.)”—M.] 

On their part—glorified.—[See note 14 in 
Appar. Critic.—M.] With and among them, the 
children of the world, as is their nature and wont, 
He is evil spoken of; they traduce the spirit of 
suffering as a degrading and slavish spirit, and 
humility as cowardice. These invectives fall 
back on the Spirit Himself.—Others connect 
βλασφημεῖται with ὄνομα χριστοῦ, which is rather 
a forced construction. Among you itis glorified 
by the consolations, the quietness and peace 
which it brings to you; thus it evinces its Divine 
power, and excites your praise and gratitude. 
The passage gives a good sense, and it would be 
a pity if it were spurious [as the authorities de- 
clare it to be.—M. ] 

Ver. 15. For let none of you—pryerinto 
other men’s matters.—Here the Apostle takes 
up the preceding blessedness (μακάριοι, v. 14), 
and in the form of exhortation emphatically de- 
clares that the value of such patient suffering 
depends on the condition that those who endure 
it must be innocent sufferers, ch. ii. 20; iii. 17. 
This is expressed first negatively, then positively. 
Here is an evident allusion to Matt. v. 11, ‘if 
they say all manner of evil against you falsely 
(lying).’”’—¢ goveic.—The reference is not to 
real accusations which had been brought against 
them, but to the possibility that such offences 
might occur among them, as Paul warns the 
Lphesians against stealing, Eph. iv. 28, ---κακοποι- 
ὅς; cf. ch. ii. 12. 14; iii. 16. 17, in a general, 
moral sense, not as denoting political offences, as 
if this had been the official description of Chris- 
tians, according to Suetonius, Vita Neronis, c. 16, 
which cannot be proved. See Weiss, p. 867.— 


ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, a term unknown to the Greeks. 
It denotes one arrogating to himself the over- 
sight of matters with which he has no concern. 
Such indiscreet zeal is not uncommon, as Hot- 
tinger remarks, among new religious communi- 
ties. This may have been a frequent temptation 
to the primitive Christians, owing to their con- 
sciousness of more enlightened views. ltis more 
than περιεργάζεσϑαι, 2 Thess. iii. 11. Cyprian: 
alienas curas agens, cf. 1 Tim. y. 18; 1 Thess. iy. 
11; Lke, xii. 14. [ὁ επισκεπτόμενος τὰ ἀλλότρια. 
Hane explicationem probat 1, ipsa vocis compositio 2, 
veterum expositio, Tert. Cypr. Aug. 3, temporis et 
loci circumstantia. Procul dubio quidam Christiani, 
ex incogitantia, temeritate et levitate, in actiones inji- 
delium utpote vicinorum suorum curiosius inquire- 
bant, eas propria arbitrio redarguebant ac judices 
eorum esse volebant, quod non pertinebat ad eorum 
vocationem. Gerhard.—M. ] 

Ver. 16. But if (he suffer) as a Christian. 
—The name Christian appears at that time to 
have been adopted by believers, Acts xi. 26; 
xxvi, 28. In the opinion of their enemies, the 
name was infamous, and so we must understand 
it here, cf. v.14. With the Jews it was tanta- 
mount to sectary, renegade and rebel; with the 
heathen it was equal to atheist. ; 

Let him not be ashamed.—Cf. Rom. i. 16: 
2 Tim. i. 8.12. Such sufferings conduce not to 
shame, but to honour; ‘they are precious jewels 
in the sight of God.” Calov. Acts νυ. 41. 

But let him glorify God in this part.— 
“‘On account of the antithesis, Peter might have 
said: Let him rather glory; but he teaches that 
the glory must be ascribed to God.” Bengel. 
Let him glorify God by patience, by good cour- 
age, confessing the faith, and by joyful praises 
and thanksgiving.—év τῷ μέρει tottw~.—(Lach- 
mann and Tischendorf read ὀνόματι at because 
of thename of Christ. Others render, less apily; 
matter, case). [See Appar. Crit., vy. 16, note 17. 
M. ]—Steiger:—‘‘In this lot which falls to him.” 
It is difficult to prove this use of μέρος. It is 
rather to be taken as ch. iii. 10. ἐν @ καταλαλῶ- 
σιν, they were to glorify God in the very thing 
for which they were slandered, viz.: their faith 
in Christ. 

Ver. 17 introduces a new ground why Chris- 
tians should gladly suffer for Christ’s sake. Pos- 
sessed of such a mind (the mind of suffering 
gladly for Christ’s sake), they will be delivered 
from the near and inevitable judgment of God 
which is about to burst on unbelievers, but be- 
gins at the Church of God in the. persecutions 
that are coming on her. The former will feel 
the whole weight of the judgment, the latter its 
first beginnings only, whereby they are saved. 

It is time.—As it is the inflexible purpose of 
God that we must through much tribulation enter 
the kingdom of God, and as it is a well-known 
law of the Divine kingdom that judgment must 
begin at the city and house of God, Jer. xxv. 29; 
x. 18; xiv. 18, 19; xlix. 12; Amos iii. 14; Ezek. 
ix. 6; xxi. 4; Heb. xii. 6, as manifested in the 
troubles of Israel in Egypt and in the wilder- 
ness, so now is the season of the judgment, for 
the end of all things is at hand, vy. 7. 

The judgment.—To believers it is a pater- 
nal chastisement, contemplating their deliver- 
ance from unknown and unrepented sins, in or- 


CHAP. IV. 12-19. 


83 


der that they may not be condemned with the 
world, 1 Cor. xi. 28. 31; it is to them a judg- 
ment of mercy, but to unbelievers a judgment 
of wrath, revealing the punitive justice of God. 
The one leads to salvation, the other to perdition, 
ef. Lke. xxiii. 80; Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. vi. 15- 
17; xx. W115. Rom. i. ὃ: 2 Thess: 1. 6. 

At the house of God.—Cf. ch.-ii. 5; 1 Tim. 
ili. 15. The Church of the Lord. Steiger has 
several quotations from the Rabbis stating that 
the judgment will begin with the righteous. 

What will be the end of them ?—What 
will be their final state? “10 the sons are chas- 
tised, what have the most malicious slaves to ex- 
pect? How will it fare with the unrighteous he- 
fore Thee, if Thou dost not even spare Thy be- 
lieving children, in order to exercise and instruct 
them?’’ Augustine. —Cf. Lke. xxiii. 81; Jer. xlix. 
12; Ps. i. 6.—rév areifotv7wv.—Cf. ch. ii. 8; iii. 
20; Jno. xvi. 8.9. [Bengel:—‘‘Judieium, initio 
tolerabilius, sensim ingravescit. Pu sua parte per- 
funeli cum immunitate spectant miserias impiorum : 
impu dum pios affligunt, swam mensuram implent et 
discunt que sua ipsorum portio futura sit: sed id 
melius sciunt pti, guare patientes sunt.” —M. ]. 

Ver. 18. If the righteous hardly is saved. 
—The thought of v. 17 is verified and strength- 
ened by the verbatim quotation of Proy. xi. 31 
in the LXX. The Apostle may also have remem- 
bered the accounts which Christ Himself gave of 
the great perils of the last temptations, Matt. 
xxiy. 12. 18. 22. 24.--μόλις, with difficulty, with 
hard pains and not without suffering.—ov φα- 
νεῖται, Ps. i. 4.5, describes the ungodly as chaff 
which the wind scattereth away.—A/xacoc—=notev- 
wv, one who as a believer leads a life well- 
pleasing and acceptable to God, is justified and 
follows after righteousness. The opposite, ἀπει- 
dav and ἁσεβῆς.--- σώζεται sc., unto life eternal. 
The opposite, to be lost, to fall hopelessly into 
perdition. 

Ver. 19. Wherefore—well-doings.—Gen- 
eral conclusion from the entire exhortation. If 
suffering according to the purpose of God is so 
necessary, if it contemplates such glorious ends, 
we ought patiently to submit to this Divine ne- 
cessity (German :—géttlichem Muss), ch. i. 6; vy. 
9, commit our soul to Him, on whom we have a 
firm and sacred hold, and never lose sight of the 
equal necessity that we continue in well-doing. 
—kai οἱ rao yovrec—Some take it as in ch. iii. 14; 
others join it with ὥστε, although it is never used 
to strengthen Gore. Better follow Wiesinger: 
‘The end and aim of every thing should be the 
glory of God, y. 11, hence also suffering.’ Those 
also who do not suffer are to commit their souls 
to the faithful Creator. 

According to the will of God.—Ch. iii. 
17; iv. 17. This contains a consolation and a 
reason for the following exhortation.—éc πιστῷ 
kttoTy.—He has not only created our souls origin- 
ally, but also created them anew in Christ. In- 
asmuch as He is faithful, it is His blessed will to 
finish the good work He has begun, and to make 
good all His promises. As our Creator, He has 
the first claim upon us, Acts iv. 24. [Oecumen- 
ius:—dogadje καὶ ἀψευδὴς κατὰ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ai- 
tov.—M. 1--- παρατιθέσθωσαν.----Α5. Christ’s dying 
words were: ‘Father, into thy hands I commit 
my spirit,’ Lke. xxiii. 46; cf. 1 Pet. i. 9.—He 

16 


is the most trusty Guardian of our souls, Ps. xxxi 
6; Eccl. xii. 7, and our bodies also are in the 
hands of God. Without His will, not a hair of 
His children can be hurt. ‘‘As the most faith- 
ful, He will preserve them, as the most mighty He 
can do it.” Gerhard.—év ayaboroiacc.—In well- 
doings. The apposition goes back to v. 15 and 
y. 16. Trust in God and well-doing must be in- 
dissolubly united. ‘‘Only inasmuch as faith re- 
stores the primal spiritual relation of Creator and 
creature, man is warranted to rejoice over this 
faithfulness of the Creator.” Steiger. Cf. Matt. 
x. 282) 1 Coryx. 18... 2) Ret. 115) 95 Rs Ὄσσαν τς 
8; cili. 14. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. There is no reward attached to suffering as 
such; it is only the patience and constancy with 
which, for Christ’s sake, suffering is borne, to 
which reward is mercifully promised. 

2. The Holy Ghost who rests upon saints, pro- 
tects them, shines forth from them, is called the 
Spirit of Glory because, says Roos, He is holy, 
and causes His holiness to radiate, and because 
He is worthy of being glorified by men and all 
other creatures. 

3. ‘The fire of trial belongs to Christianity, 
it is the rule, not the exception.”’ Richter. 

4. Why does judgment begin at the house of 
God? 1. There is one law for the Church as a 
whole, and for the individual members of it. 
Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, Heb. xii. 
6. A father, if he is earnestly opposed to evil, 
chastises first his children, afterward his house- 
hold. He is first severe to the former, afterward 
also to the latter. Since cleansing from sin is 
the end contemplated, enlightened believers re- 
cognize a merciful provision in being judged now 
that they may be saved hereafter. Hence, it is 
one of the prerogatives of the house of God that 
it is destined to pass through the judgment of 
grace in time, in order that it may be saved from 
the future judgment of wrath. 2. Because there- 
by the accuser of our souls and censurer of 
God’s ways, and his followers, are silenced and 
deprived of all objections against the justice of 
God. 

5. Verse 17 is not in conflict with Jno. iii. 18. 
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: 
but he that believeth not is condemned already ;” 
all that is necessary is to distinguish the judgment 
of grace from the judgment of wrath, and tempo- 
ral punishment from eternal. 

6. The words, ‘It is time that judgment 
should begin”—supply a hint concerning the 
date of this Epistle. The destruction of Jeru- 
salem could not have taken place when the au- 
thor wrote this passage. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The cross, the fire-proof of faith.—Why ought 
we not to be astonished at the heat ef tribulation? 
a. It comes from God. ὁ. It is designed to put. 
us to the test. c. It is meet that the flesh should 
suffer and that sinners should haye trouble. d. 
The way of Christ goes through sufferings to 
glory. 6. Suffering with Christ is a token of the 


84 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


state of grace and an earnest of future glory. /f. 
Sufferings are no disgrace but an honour. g. They 
are attended by a sense of blessedness in the 
foretaste of expected glory. A. The patience 
which we exhibit saves us from the judgment of 
wrath, which overtakes the ungodly. ὁ, Not even 
the smallest injury can befall believers without 
the will of God, and all things must conduce to 
their salvation.—What is suffering with Christ? 
a. Not to do any wrong that renders us liable to 
just punishment. ὁ. To suffer innocently for 
righteousness’ sake. ¢. To suffer for Christ’s 
sake, and in communion with Him. 

Zevier: ‘Like as our secular princes distin- 
guish faithful and constant servants and victo- 
rious generals with the badge of some order, so 
the Lord of lords distinguishes His faithful ser- 
vants and victors with crosses of suffering in 
order to prepare them a joy, as with a cross of 
honour and a token and assured expectation of 
the great honour that, as those, who with Christ 
continue patient in suffering, they shall be 
blessed hereafter with joy and gladness when at 
His second and even at His third coming, He 
shall reveal the glory of His power, and raise 
them to participation in the glory of His king- 
dom.” 

Besser: As our Lord at His first coming be- 
gan with the purifying of the Temple, so it is the 
token of the commencement of His second com- 
ing that He refines His house as with a refiner’s 
fire. Mal. iii. 2. 

Srarke: Little pain, great refreshing. Both 
with Christ, how glorious! What is taken from 
thee, for which thou dost not receive a million- 
fold reward? What boots then, thy complaining 
and weeping? Let us look upon the future and 
sweeten therewith the present. Marks [German 
‘Moles’ Maalzeichen.—M.] of Christ are tokens 
of honour. Disgrace before the world is exalta- 
tion before God and His angels.—Peter had 
made experience both of being astonished at the 
heat of tribulation, Matt. xvi. 22, and of rejoicing 
in suffering with Christ, Acts v. 41.—Partners 
in the fight, partners in the coronation. As 
surely as thou art suffering for Christ’s sake, so 
surely thou wilt be eternally clothed with joy 
and glory.—Art thou faint-hearted and timid in 
the state of temptation, observe where thou art 
suffering for Christ’s sake, and rejoice, for this 
is to thee an infallible token that thou art the 
Lord’s, Jno. xv. 19. Thou sayest: I have to 
suffer much; examine thyself, if it is not thine 
own fault; if it is, do not complain, but repent 
and amend. Lam. iii. 89.—If a Christian, who is 
neither in the magistracy nor the ministry, is 
unable to do anything towards the improvement 
of much that is disorderly, it is enough for him 
to sigh, to desire and to commit it to God, Ezek. 
ix. 4.—They call thee, and thou art a Christian; 
then remember thy Head from whom thou hast 
thy name, thy anointing which thou hast received 
from Him, 1 Jno. ii. 27, and thy duty, to follow 
Him, Matt. x. 88.—The wrath of God is no jest. 
Fear, whosoever thou art, for sin which cannot 
stand before the judgment seat, cleaves to thee, 
Job xxxiv. 11.—Many sorrows shall be to the 
wicked, Ps. xxxii. 10, while the godly simply 
hold and taste the cup of God, the ungodly have 
to drink the very dregs, Ps. lxxv. 9.—Unbelief is 


the greatest sin and the real cause of the tem- 
poral and eternal judgments of God, Mk. xvi. 
16.—Let none envy the prosperity of the wicked: 
alas! it will fare ill with them in eternity, un- 
less they repent, Ps. lxxiii. 12.—A true Christian 
ought neither to cause his own sufferings, nor 
wish for them, but commit everything to the will 
of God, 1 Sam. iii. 18.—Whoso committeth his 
soul to God must be in a state of grace and holi- 
ness, otherwise all his committing is lost and in 
vain, Job xvi. 17.—The soul, if we die a happy 
death, will surely go to God, who will preserve 
it as an immortal spirit, and the more so because 
it has been saved by Christ and sanctified by the 
Holy Spirit, Jno. v. 24. 

Roos: God decrees punishment on the right- 
eous on account of their probable indolence, on 
account of their abuse of His grace and means 
of grace, or also on account of other disorders 
and failures, which, unless they are checked, 
might lead us to positive falling away from 
grace.—The word of God announces loving se- 
verity and wholesome strictness; God is very ex- 
act with His family. 

Lisco: Blessed are innocent sufferers.—The 
hidden glory of the sharers of Christ reign. The 
different import of sufferings, a, in the house of 
God; ὃ, in sinners. 

Stier: How Christians ought to submit to 
suffering. 

Kaprr: The school of the cross, the school of 
heaven; 1, There is no way to heaven without 
the cross; 2, Heaven is opened in the cross; 3, 
The crown of the cross is in heaven. 

[Le1auTon:—Venr. 12. In these fires, as faith 
is tried, the word on which faith relies is tried, 
and is found all gold, most precious, no refuse in 
it. The truth and sweetness of the promises 
are much confirmed in the Christian’s heart upon 
his experiment of them in his sufferings; his 
God is found to be as good as His word, being 
with him when he goes through the fire, Is. 
xliii. 2, preserving him that he loses nothing 
except dross, which is a gainful loss, leaving only 
his corruption behind him. 

Ver. 13. I remember what that pious duke is 
said to have declared at Jerusalem, when they 
offered to crown him king there, ‘‘Volo auream, 
ubi Christus sptheam.” 

Ver. 14. Here what the Apostle had said, con- 
cerning suffering in general, he specifies in the 
particular case of suffering reproaches; but this 
expression seems not to come up to the height 
of that which he has used before; he spoke of 
fiery trial, but this of reproach seems rather fit 
to be called an airy trial, the blast of vanquishing 
words. Yet upon trial it will be found to be (as 
it is here accounted) a very sharp, a fiery trial, 
ef. Jas. iii. 6.—M. 

{[Macknicut:—Ver. 12. The metaphor is old 
but noble: it represents the Christians at Pontus 
as having fire cast upon them, for trying of their 
faith, as gold is tried by fire, ch. i. 7, to which 
the Apostle alludes.—M. ] 

[Ver. 17. In Bava Kama, fol. 60. 1. the fol- 
lowing passage occurs: ‘*God never punishes the 
world but because of the wicked, but He always 
begins with the righteous first. The destroyer 
makes no difference between the just and the un- 
just: only he begins first with the righteous.”"—M.] 


CHAPTER V. 1-4. 85 


CHAPTER VY. 1-4. 


ANALYsIS: Elders are exhorted in sufferings also to tend the flock of Christ aright and to be patterns to them. 


1 ‘The elders *which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder’, and a witness of 
2 the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:* * Feed 

the flock of God which is among you,® taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint,” 
3 but willingly; not* for filthy lucre,® but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords™ 
4 over God’s heritage,” but being” ensamples™ to the flock. And when the chief Shep- 


herd shall appear,” ye shall receive’ a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 


Verse 1. Ππρεσβυτέρους without the article, simply elders.—M.] 
2 Receptus omits οὖν after πρεσβυτέρους but supplies τοὺς so K. L. (and Lachmann); on the other 
hand the important Codd. A. B. insert οὖν, Βο Alford; also Sinait.—M.] 
30 cunpmpeaBuvrépos=the fellow-elder.—M. | 
4neAdAovons ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι So€ns=—the glory which is about to berevealed. Translate the whole 
verse; “‘ Elders therefore among you I, a fellow-elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, also a 
partaker of the glory which is about to be revealed, exhort.”—M.] 
Verse 2. [5 rocwavare=tend, pasture better than feed which only expresses one office of a shepherd; the Greek 
denotes all his duties, and it is impossible to convey in English the force of ποιμάνατε" τὸ ποίμ- 


viov.—M.] 


[5ἐπισκοποῦντες, omitted in B. and Sinait.,.—overseeing it. 


Those who remove this word do it perhaps 


‘‘for ecclesiastical reasons, for fear πρεσβύτεροι should be supposed to be as they really were, ἐπ ¢- 


σκοποι." (Alford). 
[ avaykaoT@s=—constrainedly.—M.] 
8 


“Ipsum eniscopatus nomen et offictum exprimere voluit.” (Calyin).—M.] 


μὴ Se=nor yet, stronger than not; “it brings in a climax each time.” (Alford).—M.] 
[2 atoxpoxepdas—for the sake of sordid gain.—M.] 


[1° r pov ws—xealously, eagerly.—M.] 


Verse 3. ie kaTaxuptevorvTes—lording it over; see note below. 


ἸὩ τῶν κλήρων, κλῆρο ς--ϊοῖ, portion. 


Simply the lots or portions committed to their care; that is, of 


the universal flock of Christ, subdivisions such as dioceses, parishes, etc. Erasmus: “Cleros autem vocat 


non Diaconos aut Presbyteros, sed gregem qui cuique forte contigit gubernandus.” 
nici portiones, qu singulis episcopis pascende et regandx velut sortito, obtigerwnt.” 


ger, de Wette, Alford, and others.—M.] 
3 γινόμεν o1—becoming.—M. } 
14 + ¥ t o1—patterns.—M. | 


Estius: “Gregis Domt- 
So Bengel, Wiesin- 


Verse 4. [15 6avepw@évt0s—when (the Chief Shepherd) is manifested.—M. ] 
[ποτὸν ἀμαράντινον otépavorv=the amaranthine crown, ποϊξεἀάἀμάραντος, but the adjective de- 


rived from it; the crown made of everlasting flowers. 


The literal translation might be retained with 


advantage: the expression is poetical and very beautiful and used by Pope and Cowper. 
The only amaranthine flower on earth 


Is v@tue; the only lasting treasure, truth.—Cowper. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


The final exhortation bears on the outward dif- 
ferences of position in the Church. 


Ver. 1. Elders among you.— Ὁ] . The 


word occurs for the first time in Ex. iii. 16. 18. 
They were in Israel the heads of the twelve 
tribes, the chiefs or princes of the tribe, οἵ. 
Numb. ii. In the place of this primitive ar- 
rangement, at the instance of Jethro, represent- 
ative elders were chosen, Ex. xviii. 13, ‘‘able 
men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covy- 
etousness;”’ and from their number a select com- 
mittee (as we should say) of seyenty elders was 
taken, Ex. xxiv. 9; Numb. xi. 16. Elders are 
also mentioned in connection with particular 
communities, Ruth iv. 2; 1 Sam. xi.3; Josh. xx. 
4. Christianity received these institutions as 
they existed; they were retained in Jewish- 
Christian Churches, and introduced into Gentile- 
Christian Churches. We find them at Antioch, 
Acts xi. 30; in the Church at Jerusalem, ch. xv. 
2.4; xxi. 18; Jas. vy. 14, and thus in our pass- 
age. They were not always (yet doubtless often) 
those oldest in years, but rather the most expe- 
rienced and matured among the converted mem- 
bers of the Church. They are also called bish- 
ops—overseers, Acts xx. 17. 28; Tit. i. 5. 7; 
Phil. 1.1; 1 Tim.iii. 1.8. They were chosen by 


M.] 


the Apostles, with the concurrence of the 
Churches, Acts xiv. 28: Tit. i. 5; their functions 
were to oversee, to administer order and direct 
discipline, to watch over pure doctrine and 
even to teach, although the last was not their 
exclusive function, 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11; 
Rom. xii. 7. After the Apostolic age, the office 
of bishop and elder were gradually separated. 
During the life-time of the Apostles, the supreme 
direction of the Churches was wielded by them, but 
they put themselves on a level with the elders, 
hence Peter calls himself συμπρεσβύτερος, and 
John describes himself as πρεσβύτερος, 2 Jno. 1; 
3 Jno. 1. ‘*So,” says Grotius, ‘‘the Roman gen- 
erals were wont to call their soldiers, comrades, 
commilitones.”” But the sense is different. The 
antithesis in v. 5 shows that πρεσβυτέρους refers 
also to age.—rovc¢ ἐν ὑμιν.----τοὺς, as Steiger sup- 
poses, has no particular significance as rendering 
ἐν ὑμῖν more emphatic. 

I exhort.—Gerhard says that Peter ad- 
vances three grounds taken from his own person, 
on which he bases his exhortation. First, he 
calls himself a fellow-elder, as a brother in office 
rightly exhorts his brethren; he calls himself a 
witness of the sufferings of Christ, not only be- 
cause he has preached the death and cross of 
Christ, but also because he had borne witness to 
Christ in very deed, in having endured various 
sufferings for Christ’s sake. But it is necessary 
to add the remark of Grotius, that ‘“‘Peter had 


86 


seen Him bound, and probably had been a dis- 
tant spectator of the crucifixion.” The second 
ground is his Apostolical vocation, sealed by suf- 
ferings, cf. 1 Cor. i. 23; Col. i. 24. 25; Gal. vi. 
17. The καί evidently indicates that μάρτυς de- 
notes also his actual testimony, cf. Heb. xii. 1; 
Acts xxii. 20; Rev. ii. 13. He is also partaker 
of the future glory, because he was himself par- 
taker of the sufferings of Christ. The readers 
of this Epistle were to look forward to the future 
glory with the same assurance in which he was 
expecting it. This is the third ground of his 
exhortation. [But compare Jno. xiii. 36, to 
which the Apostle not improbably alludes.—M. ]. 
Gerhard:—‘ The heavenly glory, the reward of 
fidelity, will be common to you and me, if you 
also will manifest due zeal in the discharge of 
your duty.” μελλούσης δόξης, ef. ch. i. 5.7; iv. 
13. 14. 

Ver. 2. Tend the flock.—zowmaivo, as dis- 
tinguished from ἐπισκοπέω, denotes: Lead it to 
the wholesome pasture of the Divine word, guard 
it from the poisonous weeds of false doctrine, and 
go before it by your own example in well-doing, 
ch. iv. 19; ef. Jno. xxi. 17; Jer. iii. 15; xxiii. 
1-4; Ezek. xxxiv. 2; Jno. x. 12; Acts xx. 28; 
Ps. xxiii. 1. Bernard:—‘‘Tend (pasture) it with 
thy mind, with thy mouth, with thy work, tend 
it with prayer, with exhortation, and the exhibi- 
tion of thy example.’”’ Let the Chief Shepherd 
be your pattern, Jno. x. 11. 

The flock of God which is among you. 
—Know that it belongs not to you, but to God, 
to whom you will have to render account.—rd ἐν 
ὑμῖν, not, as Erasmus: ‘‘as far as in you lieth” 
[quantum in vobis est], but: the flock which is 
among you, with you, in your immediate region 
[in your parish, as we would say,—M. ], the sec- 
tion of the one Church which is committed to 
your charge, cf. ch. i. 18-21; Acts xx. 28; Jno. 
x. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 25; Lke. xii. 82, Do not ima- 
gine that the flock is yours, you are only ser- 
vants. Of like import are the words of Jesus to 
Peter, Jno. xxi. 15. 16. [Gerhard says: ‘ gui 
vobiscum est, videlicet cum quo unwm corpus, una ec- 
clesia estis.’’—M. ]. 

Overseeing it— but zealously.—ézickor- 
οὔντες (Lachmann and Tischendorf, sustained by 
many authorities, retain this word) defines ποι- 
μάνατε, and denotes, looking after, overseeing, 
watching with great care something for some one, 
Heb. xii. 15; Acts xx. 28; 1 Tim. iv. 16; Tit. i. 
9; Hebr. xiii. 17. Take heed that no wolves 
come to devour the sheep, avert, in general, all 
dangers from them, and watch with great care 
over every thing that belongs to their welfare.— 
How must the flock be tended (pastured)? Peter 
cautions them against three sins of the pastoral 
office, and exhorts them to the practice of the 
opposite virtues.—y7) ἀναγκαστῶς refers not to the 
flock, but to the shepherds, and respects at once 
the acceptance and the conduct of their office. 
In those days, persuasion, bordering on con- 
straint, was probably necessary in order to induce 
one to accept or continue in the office of a pres- 
byter. Gregory the Great confesses that he 
would never compel any one to accept the Epis- 
copate. Steiger expounds: not only because it 
belongs to our office, but of free will, as God de- 
mands it. (Lachmann adds κατὰ Θεόν). ‘*Those 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


pastors are not without censure who, could they 
do as they would like to do, would rather be any 
thing than pastors.” Bengel. [Coacte pascit gre- 
gem Dei, qui propter rerum temporalium penuriam 
non habet unde vivat, idcirco predicat Evangelium 
ut de Evangelio vivere possit. Bede. ‘Dum agi- 
mus ac necessitatis prescriptum, lente et frigide in 
opere progredimur.’’ Calvin.—M. ]. 


Willingly.—Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 17; Ps. liv. 8; Ex. 
xxxvi. 2. This willing spirit flows from the love 
we cherish for the Chief Shepherd and the flock, 
Jno. x. 12; xxi. 15-17. 


Nor yet for the sake of sordid gain.— 
Some turned religion into a trade, 1 Tim. vi. 5; 
the Apostle cautions against that sin. Cf. Tit. i. 
73-1 Tim, a. 8-2; Pet. i. 13): Is lvi. 11. Jer. 
vi. 18; viii. 10; Micah iii. 11.5; Ezek. xiii. 19. 
‘Where the love of gain reigns, the shepherds 
are apt to become hirelings, yea, even wolves.’’— 
‘¢Those who pamper their body—seek the milk 
and wool of the sheep.” Luther.—podipwc de- 
notes inward delight and zeal in the salvation and 
guidance of souls, in opposition to selfish motives, 
[ Bede illustrates the word by the children of Is- 
rael, among whom even the workmen gave their 


services eagerly and gratuitously in the building, 


of the tabernacle.—M. ]. : 


Ver. ὃ. Nor yet as lording it over (the 
cure committed to them).—[So the German.— 
M. ].—karaxvpieverr, Matt. xx. 25; Mk. x. 42; 
Acts xx. 29; cf. Jas. ii. 6; Rom. xv. 16. It de- 
notes more than κυριεύειν, Lke. xxii. 25; 2 Cor. 
i. 24, for κατά carries the idea of hostility and 
pride.—rév κλήρων; KAjpoc=lot, portion of in- 
heritance, heritage, Acts xxvi. 18; Col. i. 12; ef. 
Deut. iv. 20; ix. 29. So the people of Israel are 
called the heritage of God. In the New Testa- 
ment the word was applied to those portions of 
the Christian Church which were assigned to in- 
dividual elders as their lot. So Gerhard, Calov 
and others. It is altogether erroneous to ex- 
pound κλῆρος as denoting the clergy in its orders, 
for it answers to ποιμνίου, cf. Acts xvii. 4; 1 Cor. 
vii. 85; 2 Cor. ii. 10. 

[1. κλῆρος, in the sense of portion, is the 
meaning attached to this word, besides the Com- 
mentators already cited, by Erasmus (‘‘gregem 
qui cuique forte contigit gubernandus’’), Estius 
(‘‘gregis Dominici portiones, que singulis episcopis 
pascende. et regendx velut sortito, obtigerunt’’), Ben- 
gel, Wolf, Steiger, de Wette, Huther, Wiesinger, 
Alford; 2. κλῆρος, in the sense of heritage of God, 
is the meaning given by Cyril (on Is. iii. 2), Cal- 
vin (‘* guum universum ecclesize corpus hrreditas sit 
domini, todidem sunt veluti preedia, quorum culturam 
singulis presbyteris assignat.”), Beza, E. V., Gro- 
tius, Benson, al. The objections to this view 
are, according to Alford, that κλῆροι could not be 
taken for portions of κλῆρος, and that Θεοῦ could 
in this case hardly be wanting; 8. κλῆρος, in the 
sense of the clergy, is the anachronistical mean- 
ing attached to the word chiefly by Roman Catho- 
lic Commentators; so even Oecumenius, Jerome, 
ἃ Lapide (‘‘jubet ergo S. Petrus Episcopis et Pas- 
loribus, ne inferioribus clericis impericse dominari ve- 
lint’), Fenardentius, al.; 4. Bodwell arbitrarily 
explains the word of Church-goods, and is refuted 
by Wolf, Cure ἢ. l.—The correctness of the 
meaning of the text, namely, the first as given 


͵ 


CHAPTER V. 1-4. 


above, is evident from τοῦ ποιμνίου, the flock, 
which corresponds to τῶν KAjpov.—M. | 

But (becoming) patterns.—4aA/d riror.—Cor- 
nelius correctly remarks that Peter opposes this 
pattern to their lording. They must rule by ex- 
ample, not by ordering. Athanasius:—‘The life 
should command, and the tongue persuade.” 

[ Wordsworth: —‘‘St. Peter happily uses the 
plural, κλῆροι; for in Christian times, it is not one 
nation, as it had been of old, which is the chosen 
people and heritage of God, but all national 
Churches, all congregations of Pastors and People 
are heritages of the Lord; each ‘*Church and each 
congregation”’, which every Pastor serves, is, in 
a mystical sense, as the English Ordinal declares, 
‘¢The Spouse and Body of Christ.” By the word 
κλῆροι, therefore, we may understand here the 
faithful people of Christ, distributed in regular 
order into various dioceses, parishes, churches, 
and congregations, like the companies to which 
our Lord distributed the loaves and fishes by the 
hands of His Apostles.” 

‘“‘Here is another caution from St. Peter’s 
mouth, which may be commended to the consid- 
eration of those who call themselves his succes- 
sors. ‘The Apostle forbiddeth dominari in cleris.’ 
But they who claim to be his successors are not 
afraid to ‘teach that their own judgments are in- 
fallible, and to make their definitions an univer- 
sal Rule of Faith, and to require subjection to 
their laws and persons, as of necessity to salva- 
tion, and to be called ‘Dominus Deus noster Papa,’ 
(Gloss, in Hxtrav. Pape; Johann. 22, Tit. xiv. 
4), ete., all which and much more is professed by 
the Popes and in their behalf. No modest man 
can deny that this amounts to as much as St. 
Peter’s dominari in cleris, even’ to the exercising 
of such lordship over the Lord’s heritage, the 
Christian Church, as will become none but the 
Lord Himself, whose heritage it is.’ Bp. San- 
derson, 3, p. 288. Apposite are also the following 
quotations from Bernard: (*‘ Monstrosa res est gra- 
dus summus et animus infimus, sedes prima et vita ima, 
lingua magniloqua et vita otiosa, sermo multus et func- 
tus nullus’’), Gregory, (‘‘ Informis est vita pastoris, 
qui modo calicem Dei signat, modo talos agitat: qui 
in avibus ceeli ludit, canes instigat etc.”’), and Ger- 
hard (‘‘ Pastor ante oves vadit’”’).—M. } 

Ver. 4. And when—amaranthine crown 
of glory.—‘‘Instead of sordid gain, and the 
empty honour of ruling, the Apostle shows to 
them noble gain and a true crown of honour.” 
Besser. Cf. Dan. xii. 8; Matt. xxiv. 45; xxv. 
21; 2 Tim. iv. 8.—apyiroiuevoc, ch. 11. 25; Heb. 
xiii. 20; cf. Ezek. xxxiv. 15. 23; Ps. xxiii.; Jno. 
x. 11.—xai=then 8150.--φανερωθέντος, like ἀποκα- 
λύπτεσθαι, relates to the visible return of Christ, 
ch. i. 5. 7; ef. Gol. iii. 4; 1 Jno. 11. 28; iii. 2.— 
κομίζεσθαι, see i. 9.---ἀμαράντινος---ἀμάραντος, ch. 
i. 4.—rdv τῇβ δόξης orépavov.—The crowns 
(wreaths) with which warriors and the success- 
ful competitors in the games used to be adorned 
were made of flowers, herbs, ivy, laurel leaves, 
and olive branches. Holy Scripture speaks of a 
crown of righteousness, 2 Tim. iv. 8, a crown of 
life, Jas. i. 12; Rev. ii. 10, and here of a crown 
of glory. Instead of a crown of thorns, the 
Christian victor shall hereafter be adorned with 
a living, heavenly crown. 


Whether there is a} shall never understand in our bodily life. 


87 


are all one and the same crown, will only be dis- 
closed in eternity. Besser explains it as a 
token of the royal dignity of believers, of which 
Zech. vi. 18 may be regarded the type, ef. 1 Cor. 
ix. 25. Hugo, Thomas Aquinas, Salmero un- 
derstand by it a higher stage of eternal life.— 
δόξης must not be diluted into ‘‘the wreath which 
is glory’’—or a very glorious crown, but the crown 
which reflects the glory of God, ef. ch. i. 7; v. 
10. [The glory of Christ is probably this ama- 
ranthine crown, cf. 1 Pet. v. 1; iv..18; i. 7, and 
v. 10 below; also 1 Jno. iii. 2, etc.—M.] 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The title of Chief Shepherd which is here 
ascribed to Christ in relation to the under-shep- 
herds, His servants, involves the Divine origin 
of the pastoral office. It describes Christ not 
only as superior in dignity to the other shep- 
herds, but as their superior in power, in whose 
name and in whose stead they hold the pastoral 
office, to whom belong both the sheep and the 
shepherds, because He has given His life for 
them, Jno. x. 11; Acts xx. 28, to whom the shep- 
herds are consequently responsible, and from 
whom they have to expect the reward or the 
punishment of the conduct of their office, 1 Cor. 
iv. 5; so Calvin, Calov and others. 

2. To give, as Schwegler does, v. 4, a polemical 
reference to then existing hierarchical tenden- 
cies, and thence to argue against the genuineness 
of the Epistle, is a decided perversion of the 
right stand point. 

3. The institution of the presbyterate is not 
stated explicitly, but it was already in existence 
before the death of the elder James, and before 
Paul’s first missionary journey to Jerusalem, Acts 
xi. 80. It appears, says Weiss, to have everywhere 
originated with the founding and more independ- 
ent establishment and organization of the Chris- 
tian Church, especially in Jewish-Christian con- 
gregations, which followed the precedent of their 
mother Church. Paul on his first missionary 
journey ordained elders everywhere, Acts xiv. 


4, This Epistle does not yet refer to different 
offices in the Church. We have before us the 
most simple form of Church-constitution, under 
which all other offices were as yet included in 
the Apostolate and the Presbyterate. As in ch. 
ii. 25, the Lord is called the Shepherd and Bish- 
op (overseer) of the Church, so the elders were 
to continue under Him these His functions, that 
is, on the one hand to teach and exhort, and to 
arrange Divine worship, and on the other to take 
care that all things should be done honestly and 
orderly, to administer the discipline and to pro- 
vide for the support of the poor. 

5. Peter considers self-sacrificing love and 
self-abasing humility the most essential qualifi- 
cations of true spiritual pastors. 

6. The declarations of Holy Scripture con- 
cerning the glory of the life to come, and its 
crowns of honour, ought to be dealt with as hav- 
ing more reality than common theology is wont 
to do. ‘The full import of these crowns we 
But 


difference between these crowns, or whether they | from their very names, we may conclude that 


88 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


they constitute a great glory, and indicate a title 
to live with Christ after death and royally to 
reign with Him after suffering, 2 Tim. ii. 12; 
Rey. xxii. 5.” Roos. 

7. [The Commentators justly observe that if 
Peter had been the prince or chief of the Apos- 
tles, as the Papists affirm, he would in this place 
and in the inscription of his two Epistles, have 
assumed to himself that high prerogative.—Mac- 
knight.— M. ] 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The pastoral office a gift of God to the Church- 
es. 1. The extent of its duties; 2. the mind in 
which it must be administered. — Preachers 
should give testimony drawn from their own ex- 
perience.—How to avoid the three capital faults 
of unfaithful pastors. Look through shame and 
death to the crown of honour and the crown of 
life prepared for those who overcome. 

Srarke:—A lofty saying: Who would gladly 
neglect the flock and sheep of Christ? 1 Cor. iv. 
2.—We may be fully assured of our salvation: 
witnesses and testimonies of it abound, Rom. viii, 
16.—Rich cross-bearers! which are the riches, 
and where are they? They are more than those 
of earth, and well secured in heaven. Believe, 
hope and desire, and you will know it, 1 Jno. iii. 
2.—A minister must lead his flock as a shepherd 
to wholesome pasture, rule it with the rod of his 
mouth, Is. xi. 4, with the staves beauty and 
bands, Zech. xi. 7 (German, ‘gentleness and 
pain”), and in all respects be watchful, that 
they suffer no injury whatsoever, Is. lxii. 6.— 
Hearers should possess the characteristics of good 


sheep to acquire the mind of Christ their Chief 
Shepherd and to hear His voice and that of faith- 
ful under-shepherds with ready obedience.—No 
rule whatsoever belongs to the office of a preach- 
er; preachers are servants, not rulers, Matt. xx. 
25. 26.—Teacher, thou oughtest not only to teach 
rightly, but also to live rightly, lest thou do not 
build up with one hand and tear down with the 
other, 1 Thess. ii. 10. If all believers are indis- 
criminately a royal priesthood, this distinction is 
especially true of faithful teachers whose dignity 
is indicated by the erown, and although they 
possess this dignity already in the new man, it 
will increasingly appear at the revelation of 
Jesus Christ. 

Roos:—‘‘Let us belong only to those who, 
leading an honest life, may indulge the hope of 
receiving such crowns, although as yet we do 
not understand their nature.” 

Lisco:—The Christian pastoral office: 1. Its 
duties; 2. Its motives; 8. Its reward. 

RicuTER :—‘‘ Christian teachers and preachers 
must not rule by authority, but guide and direct 
by the power of truth and love and the force of 
example. Let no pastor be a pope.”’ The pas- 
tors of a Church should seek their preéminence 
in that they first keep the commandments of 
Christ, and thus incite others to emulation, Phil. 
iii. 17 5.2; Thess. die 9 5.4 Tim. ive 12 5, Tit. tied, 

[Le1aguron :—Ver. 1. The blessing of a faith- 
ful pastor. ὁ“ Satius solem non lucere quam Chry- 
sostomum non docere.”” ΜΠ. 2. Had I, says Ber- 
nard, some of that blood poured forth on the 
cross, how carefully would I carry it, and ought 
I not to be as careful of those souls that it was 
shed for ?—All believers are God’s clergy (κλῆρος). 
—M.] 


CHAPTER V. 5-11. 


ANALysIs :—Exhortation, addressed especially to the younger, to subjection, and to all, to continued humility, to submis- 
siveness to the hand of God, to faithfulness and vigilance, and thus to resist the devil. God Himself will then perfect 


and strengthen them. 


Likewise, ye younger, ‘submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be sub- 
ject” one to another, and be clothed® with humility: * for God resisteth® the proud and 


Seiveth grace to the humble. 


careth for you. 


Humble yourseives therefore under the mighty hand 


Be sober, be vigilant; because® your adversary the devil, as a roar- 


5 
6 
7 of God, that he may exalt you in due time’: Casting® all your care upon him; for he 
8 
9 


ing lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” 


Whom resist steadfast! in 


the faith, knowing that the same afflictions! are accomplished" in your brethren™ 


10 


that are in the world. 


But the God of all grace, who hath called us" unto his eter- 


nal glory by” Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while,!® make you perfect, 


1 


ever.” Amen. 


Verse 5. [ 1 ὑποτάγητ e=be subject.—M. 


stablish,” strengthen, settle” you. To him be glory* and dominion for ever and 


2 Rec. after ἀλλήλοις inserts ὑποτασσόμενοι, With K. L.; A. B., Sinait. and many versions omit it.— 
M.] So also Lachmann and Tischendorf; in that case, translate, “ yea, all gird on humility to one an- 


other.” 


[8ἐγκομβώσασθε, to bind a thing on oneself, wear it constantly; the sense is, wear humility as a gar- 
ment, and retaining the translation of E. V., render: “clothe yourselves with humility.” For the ety- 


mology of the word, see note below.—M.] 


CHAPTER V. 5-11. 


nn. -.--“---ο'--ρ--ρ----- 


4 67.—=because.—M. ] 


89 


SavritTagoeTat—setteth himself in opposition to, 7. 6.7 opposeth himself to.—M.] 


6 §&=but, not ‘and.—M.] 
Verse 6. 
—M. 


Ἰὲν xacpo=in His time (Germ.), in the time appointed. καιρός, an anarthrous concrete, Winer, p. 136. 


Verse 7. [πᾶσαν THY μέριμνα v=all your care, that is, in its entironess, once for all, so as to render the recur- 


rence of it impossible——M.] 


Verse 8. [9 Rec., with L., inserts ὅτι beforeavridcKo s.—M.] 
[10 Κα. L. and otbers have τίνα καταπιεῖν; Sin.ckatamtv.—M.] 


Verse 9. ΠῚ grepeo(—firm, better than stedfast.—M. ] 


[2rd αὐτὰ τῶν radnpartwy—the selfsame sufferings ; this construction occurs no where else in the 


New Testantent.—M.| 


[133 ἐπιτελεῖσθαι-εατε being accomplished, in course of accomplishment.—M.] 


15 Translate the whole verse: ‘“ Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, 
walketh about, seeking whom he may devour; whom (to whom offer resistance) resist, firm in the faith, 
knowing that the self-same sufferings are being accomplished by your brotherhood in the yen 


tis adeA 6677 t—brotherhood.—M.] 


Wév Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ--ϊη (not by) Christ Jesus.—M.] 


Verse 10. ἢ Rec., with K. and several versions, reads ἡ μᾶς, but A. B. L. and others have ὑ μᾶς; so also Sinait.—M. 


18 ὀλίγον ma06vtas—when ye have suffered a little while.—M. ] 
[19 Rec., with K. L., inserts ὑμᾶς after καταρτίσει; A. B. and others omit it. στηρίξει-εῖο confirm, 


establish.—M. ] 


20 θεμελιεώσ εἰ--ερτουπᾶ you, fix you ona foundation.—M. ] 
Verse 11. [21 Translate: “To Him ts glory,” preterable to the Subjunctive. Rec., with K. L., etc., reads ἡ δόξα καὶ 


before τὸ kpatos.—M.] 


[2 εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνω ν--πηΐο the ages of the ages. B. omits the last words.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 5. Likewise ye younger - — the 
elder.—éyoiwe, as in ch. iii. 7, leads to the cor- 
responding duty of the younger members of the 
Church in general. These are not laymen, 
but the younger members of the Church in 
general. The antithesis would seem to war- 
rant taking πρεσβύτεροι as describing the aged 
members of the Church, but this would in- 
volve understanding πρεσβύτεροι in a sense dif- 
ferent from v. 1; moreover ὁμοίως would conflict 
with such an interpretation. They are accord- 
ingly elders in office, who were, as we have al- 
ready shown, generally also elders in years. At 
the same time, it may be assumed that all the 
elder persons were to take a voluntary part in 
some, though not in all the functions of presby- 
ters. πρεσβύτεροι and νεώτεροι denote, therefore, 
the contrast between those who were either bound 
to lead, or might voluntarily do it, and those who 
were led and obeying. The view of Weiss, who un- 
derstands by νεώτεροι or νεανίσκοι, Acts v. 6. 10, of 
young persons who were to assist the elders in out- 
ward ministrations, is hardly tenable, at least on 
the ground on which he puts it. πάντες dé in what 
follows, embraces πρεσβύτεροι and νεώτεροι, and is 
not antithetical to the latter. Could a small 
portion of the Church only be exhorted to be 
subject to the presbyters? This would, at all 
events, necessitate the idea of official subordina- 
tion in a narrowed sense. Such an observance 
in other Churches is also doubtful. [Alford, who 
takes a similar view, expresses it with more 
clearness and logical force. He says: ‘*As the 
name πρεσβύτεροι had an official sense, viz.: su- 
perintendents, of the Church, so νεώτεροι like- 
wise describes those who were the ruled, the dis- 
ciples of the πρεσβύτεροι. Thus taken, it will 
mean here, the rest of the Church as opposed to 
πρεσβύτεροι.---Μ. 1---ὑποτάγητε, cf. ch. ii. 13. 18; 
iii. 1. Calvin :—‘‘ Nothing is more repugnant to 
the mind of man (in his fallen state) than to be 
subject.” 

Yea all.—rdrrec δὲ, inferiors are to subject 
themselves to superiors, wives to their husbands, 
_ children to their parents, slaves to their masters, 
yea, in a certain sense, all to all, cf. Phil. ii. 3; 
Eph. v. 21; Rom. xii. 10. This subordination, 


which is insisted upon as a principal point in the 
order of the Christian commonwealth, must be 
founded on humble submission to God, cf. Matt. 
xx. 27; xxiii. 12; Lke. xiv. 11; xviii. 14. 

And clothe yourselves with humility.— 
τὴν ταπεινοφροσύνην, lowliness of mind, which to 
the heathen was vile, brokenness of a proud 
heart, the opposite of ὑψηλὰ φρονεῖν, Rom. xii. 
16; cf. Phil. ii. 3; Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii, 12.— 
ἐγκομβοῦσθαι from κόμβος, a string or band to tie 
something with, to fasten it, a knot, or from 
ἐγκόμβωμα, explained by Pollux, according to 
Riemer, of a white apron or frock worn over the 
clothes to keep them clean, like the dusters used 
by coachmen and travellers. It was a garment 
usually worn by slaves. Calvin and others con- 
sider it to denote a show-dress, but this cannot 
be proved. Caloy combines the twoideas: ‘‘ We 
are to put on humility as a garment (ef. Col. iii. 
12) and have it fastened tight to us.” [His lan- 
guage, literally translated, is somewhat Iudi- 
crous: ‘‘We should be buttoned up tight in it.” 
—M.]—We should be thoroughly surrounded by 
it, have it fit close all round, and suffer nobody 
to tear it away from us (cf. Jno. xiii. 5, ete.,), 
even if it should be regarded as a servile gar- 
ment. [Alford renders ἐγκομβώσασθε, gird on, 
from ἐγκόμβωμα, used for a kind of girdle by 
Longus, Pastoralia, 2, 33, and Pollux, 4, 119. 
See in Wetstein.—M. ] 

Because God opposeth Himself to the 
proud, but giveth grace to the humble.— 
The Apostle gives the reason for his exhortation 
in a citation from Prov. 111. 84, in the LXX., the 
only variation being the substitution of 6 Θεός for 
Kvptoc, cf. Jas. v. 6; Prov. ,xxix. 23; Job xxii. 


29.--ὠῥἙπερηφάνοις, Heb. Sy, ) , scorners, haugh- 


ty, insolent men, unmindful of God, and proudly 
looking down upon others, Lke. i. 51; Rom. i. 
30; 2 Tim. iii. 2. “They assault, as it were, 
the honour of God in seizing that which belongs 
to God. Other sins fly from God, pride only op- 
poses itself to God; other sins crush men, pride 
only raises them against God. Hence God also, 
in His turn, opposes Himself to the proud.” 
Gerhard. [Alford quotes the saying of Artaba- 
mus to Xerxes, Herod., vii. 10, ὁρᾷς τὰ ὑπερέχον- 
τα ζῶα ὡς κεραυνοῖ ὁ Θεός, οὐδὲ ἐᾷ φαντάζεσθαι, τὰ 


90 


δὲ σμικρὰ οὐδὲν μὲν KviFer;.. . φιλέει γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ 
ὑπερέχοντα πάντα κολούειν.---Μ. 1.---ἀντινάσσεται, He 
opposes Himself to them as withanarmy. This 
sentiment was known to some extent to the bet- 
ter among the heathen, because the history of the 
world proves it. See Steiger, cf. Dan. iv. 34.— 


ταπεινοῖς = ἊΨ, the lowly, those who acknow- 
ledge their vileness, and consider themselves 
mean and low.—didwot χάριν — fT, His good 


pleasure rests upon them, and He gives them 
proofs of it, cf. Gen. vi. 8; xviii. 8; Lke. i. 30; 
ii. 52; Acts ii. 47.—“The proud who persist in 
offering Him armed resistance, are struck down 
by His mighty hand.” Gerhard. «There are, 
as it were, two hands of God under which we 
must humble ourselves, the one abases the proud, 
the other exalts the humble.” Augustine. [‘ Hu- 
militas est vas gratiarum.” ibid.—M. ] 

Ver. 6. Humble yourselves therefore.— 
A new inference drawn from the citation from the 
Old Testament and the concluding exhortation. 
The Apostle once more reverts to suffering and 
causes, says Besser, the light of the citation to 
shine on the darkness of suffering of the Church. 
--:ταπεινώθητε ---- bow yourselves in humility, re- 
cognize your impotence and the might of God; 
submit yourselves to Him quietly and willingly. 


Under the mighty hand of God.—An al- 
lusion to ch. iv. 17, to the impending judgments. 
He can put down and exalt, kill and make alive, 
wound and heal, Acts iv. 28, 30; Deut. xxxii. 39; 
1 Sam. ii. 6; 2 Kings v. 7; Deut. iii. 24; Ex. xiv. 
31; iii. 19; xxxii. 11; Lke. i. 51. He reveals His 
chastising hand also to believers in the sufferings 
which He sends for their refining and trial. 


That He may exalt you in His time.— 
iva ὑμᾶς, in order that in you may be fulfilled 
that law of the kingdom of God, ‘he that shall 
humble himself, shall be exalted,” Matt. xxiii. 
12.—iyoiv to raise from the dust, to comfort 
and help, to advance to honour from disgrace, to 
joy from grief, ch. i. 6.7; ¢f. Jas. iv. 7. 10.— 
ἐν καιρῷ (Lachmann adds ἐπισκοπῆς [A and many 
versions.—M.], probably a later addition from 
ch. ii. 12) in the time appointed, the right time, 
here on earth or hereafter without any reference 
to our time. 

Ver. 7. Casting all your care upon Him. 
—Holy freedom from all anxious care is essential 
to submission toGod. ‘The mighty hand of God 
is in the service of a Father’s heart for He careth 


for you.” Besser :---ἐπιῤῥίψαντες from Ps. ly. 23. 
ἐπιῤῥίπτω = δ) and you to roll a 
Tt et 


burden, οὗ, Ps. xxii. 11; xxxvii. 5; Matt. vi. 25— 
34; Phil. iv. 6, to cast upon, to, over, Lke. xix. 
25; xii. 22.—*We cast our cares upon God in 
believing prayer and tell Him the need which ex- 
cites our care, as children are wont to confide 
their grief to their father. We implore His help, 


remembering His mercy and His mighty hand. | 


And He is not implored in vain.’’ Roos :—‘*Hence 
we must not struggle long with the burden of our 
cares but ease ourselves at once by earnest heart- 
yearning and ferventsighing.” Calov: “μέριμνα 
from μέρος, μερίζω, care, as it were, divides the 
heart into different parts, drawing it hither and 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


thither.—zdoav τὴν, anxiety in its entireness, the 
whole of it, undivided and without any reserve 
whatsoever; great cares and small ones, cares 
seen or hidden, pour them out before Him. 

Because He careth for γου.---μέλει, because 
He has you at heart, He has taken it upon Him- 
self to care for you; nota hair of your head shall 
perish without His will, Lke. xxi. 18; Mtt. x. 
80.—[repi ὑμῶν. περί after verbs of caring de- 
notes about. As to the distinction between περί 
and ὑπέρ, Weber, Demosth. p. 280, says: ‘epi 
solam mentis circumspectionem vel respectum rei, ὑπέρ 
simul animi propensionem etc. significat.”” See Winer 
p. 890.—M.]. ‘Believers daily ascend Mount 
Moriah with Abraham, appropriating as their 
motto, the words, ‘God will provide,’ Gen. xxii. 
8. The Lord will provide on that mountain, that 
is on the mountain of Divine Providence, whence 
cometh our help, Ps. exxi.”’ Gerhard. 

Ver. 8. Be sober, be vigilant.—That free- 
dom from care must not degenerate into apathy, 
for we are still in the Church militant, not yet in 
the Church triumphant. To the care which trou- 
bles from within must be added the temptations 
which come from the kingdom of darkness. Hence 
the Apostle exhorts them anew to sobriety and 
vigilance, ch. iv. 8, i. 18. ‘Let this be your 
care.” Bengel.—vjyare, γρηγορήσατε, go insepa- 
rably together, hence no copulative. ypyyoojoare 
cf. Lke. xxi. 84. 36. This watching consists, says 
Caloy, in the prudence by which we avoid the 
lying in wait of Satan, in the shunning of false 
security and of sins and in the throwing out of 
sentinels, Eph. vi. 11; Matt. xxiv. 42; xxv. 13; 
1 Cor. xvi. 13. The exhortation based upon the 
words of our Lord, springs simultaneously from 
the Apostle’s own experience, Matt. xxvi. 40. 41; 
Luke xxii. 45; cf. 1 Thess. v. 6. [Augustine: 
“ Corde vigila, fide vigila, spe vigila, caritate vigila, 
operibus vigila.”’—M. 

Your adversary.—The exposition which sees 
in ‘‘adversary ” human slanderers, (Hensler and 
others) needs no refutation. Satan is called ab- 
solutely the adversary of believers, who stands 
up as the champion of law when he opposes them, 
their enemy, Matt. xiii. 39; John viii. 44; Rev. 
xli. 10; the prince of this world, Eph. ii. 2; 2 
Cor. iv. 4; John xvi. 11; xii. 81; xiv. 30; Acts 
xxvi. 18; 2 Thess. ii. 9; 1 John iii. 8. He is the 
declared opponent, both of Christ and of His 
members. He is the accuser of the brethren, 
Rey. xii. 10; ef. Job i. 6, ete. 

Walketh about.—<As in Job i. 7, he is said 
to go to and fro in the earth, so here he is said 
to walk about, which applies not to visible ap- 
pearings, but to his operations by his instruments. 
Scripture indeed teaches that the evil spirits are 
confined in hell, 2 Peter ii. 4; Jude 6; Luke 
viii. 81; but they are bound only in respect of 
their visible appearing, while they rule invisibly 
in the regions of the air, Eph. ii. 2; vi. 12; in 
darkness, they roam over desert places, Matt. 
xii. 43. 44; Luke xi. 24; and influence man me- 
diately and immediately, Luke xxii. 23; John 
xiii. 27. 

Asa roaring lion.—The lion, according to 
Pliny, roars most violently, when he is hungry. 
Elsewhere Satan is compared with a serpent, on 
account of his cunning, 2 Cor. xi. 3; Rev. xii. 9; 
xx. 2; here, with a lion on account of his cruelty 


CHAPTER V. 5-11. 


and boldness, his power and strength, and his 
lust of injury. ‘‘When furious Jews and mad 
heathens began a persecution of the Christians, 
or attacked individual Christians, or simply 
threatened them, it was the devil’s work, who 
then showed himself as a roaring lion. But since 
such things happened here and there, he is de- 
scribed as a roaring lion who walketh about. 
His object is to terrify and to tear, but especially 
to tear. His terrifying consisted of old in me- 
nacings, threatening edicts and anathemas, his 
tearing in executions.””—Roos. [Gerhard: ‘‘Com- 
paratur diabolus leont famelico et pre impatientia 
famis rugienti, quia perniciem nostram inexplebiliter 
appetit, nec ulla preeda et sufficit.’—M. | 

Seeking whom he may devour.—Cf. Matt. 
xxiii. 34; 1 Cor. xv. 92: Heb. xi. 806. The com- 
parison relates to both.—xaramivew, to drink 
greedily, to gulp or swallow down. He cannot 
devour every body, move them to fall away from 
Christ into sin, but only those who are not sober 
and vigilant. ‘‘The enemy and opponent of the 
Church despises those who are already in his 
power, whom he has estranged from the Church 
and led away captive and conquered. He passes 
them over, and continues to tempt those of whom 
he knows that Christ dwells in them.”—Cyprian. 

Ver. 9. Whom resist firm in the faith.— 
How shall we offer resistance to this powerful 
enemy? 1. In firm faith. 2. In the thought 
that such suffering is not peculiar, but the uni- 
versal lot of Christians.—dvricryre. James iv. 7, 
cites the same passage; Proy. ili. 34, has the 
same exhortation, ‘‘Submit yourselves therefore 
to God;” cf. ver. 10, and the charge: ‘ Resist 
the devil, and he will flee from you.” This cir- 
cumstance renders the reference of the one Epistle 
to the other very probable.—‘ Resist him, in order 
to drive him back when he attacks us. The Lion 
of the tribe of Judah is more mighty by far than 
the lion of hell. His victory and His might be- 
come our own through faith.” Caloy. Eph. iii. 
16; John xv. 4; 1 Cor. vi. 17.—‘‘ Unbelievers 
fear the devil as a lion, the strong in faith despise 
him as a worm.” Isidor. ‘‘ Victory over Satan 
lies in faith, because faith unites us to Christ, the 
victor. By faith the devil is driven to flight as 
is the lion by fire.” Gerhard.—orepeo/, firm, im- 
movable in faith, in faithful cleaving to Christ 
and His word; cf. Acts xvi. 5; Rom. iv. 20; Col. 
ii. 5. 7; Eph. vi. 16; iv. 14. 

Knowing that the self-same sufferings— 
in the world.—eidérec, cf. ch. i. 18; iii. 9.— 
τὰ αὐτὰ, the same kind of sufferings of trial. The 
thought that these sufferings are common to all 
the brethren, is designed to warn against the 
conceit that they are rejected by God and man, 
that they are either extraordinary sinners or un- 
common saints; cf. 1 Cor. x. 18.---ὠἀδελφότητι, ch. 
li. 13.—év κόσμῳ, to indicate the reason of their 
sufferings. You live in an imperfect world, 
among transitory things, and with the children 
of unbelief, John ix. 5.—émuteAeiofa, used of the 
payment and discharge of taxes and debts; of 
the discharge and completion of some business 
or combat. The ideas of payment of debt and 
completion may be combined; they are endured 
by your brethren with a view to their completion 
(perfecting, so German) by the appointment of 
God.—ry ἀδελφότητι for ὑπὸ τῆς ἀδελφότητος. De 


91 


Wette and others take it as the Dative of the more 
remote object [7. e., the Dative of reference.—M. ] 
as in γίνεσθαι ὑμῖν, ch. iv. 12; so Wiesinger. 
««They not only are partakers of our sufferings, 
but our confederates in prayer and in combating 
the enemy.’’—Calov. 

Ver. 10. But the God of all grace.—A 
final promise full of rich consolation. χάρις de-! 
notes here, as in ch. iy. 10, a Divine gift of grace, 
πάσης involving a plurality of gifts, ef. ch. iii. 7; 
Jas. 1, 17; 1 Cor. xii. 6; Heb. iv. 16; 2 Cor. v. 
18; i. 8; Rom. xv. 5. ‘He is the source of all 
grace and of all goods.” Gerhard. ‘With the 
idea of Him [7. e., God.—M.] there is indissolu- 
bly united whatsoever is called grace.” Steiger. 

Who hath called you, ὁ καλέσας ἡμᾶς (Lach- 
mann and Tischendorf read iuac, which is the 
more authentic reading). His call discloses to 
us His gracious disposition. He will complete 
that which He has begun, ef. ch. i. 15. 

Unto his eternal glory in Christ Jesus. 
—The Divine act of calling us to that glory con- 
tains the earnest, that every thing will so come 
to pass as to take us forward to the end [réAoc, 
——M.] of the calling. καλέσας belongs to ἐν γρισ- 
τῷ Ἰησοῦ not to ὀλίγον παθόντας.---αἰώνιον δόξαν, 
ch. vy. 1; iv. 18; i. 11. 5.—év ypiord. In His 
power, for His sake and by His word, Eph. i. 3; 
ili. 11; 2 Tim. i. 9, as the calling also takes place 
with reference to Him, cf. Gal. i. 6; 1 Thess. ii. 
12; 2 Thess. ii. 14. 

When ye have suffered a little while.— 
ὀλίγον παθόντας are rightly connected by Steiger 
with what has gone before in the sense: which 
glory will come to pass in the natural order, af- 
ter we have suffered a little, or on condition 
that we have suffered a little, ch. iii. 14; Rom. 
vill. 18. So Wiesinger, cf. Phil. i. 0.---ὀλίγον, 
time as contrasted with infinite eternity, ch. i. 6. 
Gerhard: ‘“‘The Apostle shows that from the 
same fountain of grace proceed both the first 
calling to heavenly glory and the ultimate con- 
summation of this benefit.” 

Himself will perfect you.—(The Fut. In- 
dic. of this and the following verbs is preferable 
to the Optat.). καταρτίσει from ἄρτιος, complete, 
perfect of its kind, ready. He will perfect your 
deficiencies, make you ready in every sense, ‘‘so 
that no defect remain in you.” Bengel. Cf. 
Heb. xiii. 21; 1 Thess. iii. 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 11. 

Confirm, o77pifexv—to prop, make fast, to give 
firm stay and support to what is tottering, Luke 
RKO wom elev) ceil Thess adios 2 ebetaede 
12; Jas. v. 8. ‘Nothing shall cause you to 
shake.” Bengel. 

Strengthen, σθενώσει from σθένος, might, 
bodily strength, hence to impart spiritual might, 
to strengthen spiritually. Gerhard thinks of the 
figure of a castle which is fortified, cf. v. 9. 

Ground, θεμελιώσει (Lachmann omits ὑμᾶς and 
θεμελιώσει. Tischendorf also omits the former), 
θεμελιόω, to found, fasten in the ground (fix as 
on a foundation), render strong, Mtt. vii. 25; 
Lke. vi. 48; Heb. i. 10; figuratively, Eph. iii. 
1 Cols i 39 5. Corestxv, 8: 1 Ret α 4" 2 
Tim. ii. 19, Take note of the intrinsic develop- 
ment and rise of these verbs. 

To Him is the glory and the might.— 
αὐτῷ ἡ δοξά. Expression of gratitude for these 
exhibitions of grace; men dare not take any 


92 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


share of the credit to themselvyes.—xpdroc, the 
might, the rule, the authority which He employs 
in our preparation, Eph. iii. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 16; 
Heb. xiii. 21. The glory of God is the ultimate 
purpose of all. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Classical antiquity holds along with the re- 
cognition of the truth that God opposes Himself 
to the proud, the error which the prince of dark- 
ness threw into the heart of our parents, that 
the Deity is an envious Being, who, from jeal- 
ousy, is impatient of any exaltation (Germ. Héhe) 
alongside His own. So in Herodotus, Lucanus. 
Many productions of modern literature, and 
many opinions of degraded men, exhibit just 
such suspicious thoughts. 

2. Mute resignation, as found among fatalists, 
is infinitely different from that believing submis- 
sion to the appointments of God, which Holy 
Scripture requires. 

3. The teaching of Peter concerning the influ- 
ence of Satan, decidedly annihilates the distor- 
tion of the truth, which here and there is ad- 
vanced in our time, that the power of Satan 
ceased with the advent of Christ. Satan asks, 
says Calvin, nething better than to be able to 
attack and capture us unawares. How could he 
better gain his end than by deceiving us into the 
belief of his non-existence, so as to deprive us 
of all fear of him. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Humility is like Jacob’s ladder, which leads 
from earth to heaven. 1. Its ground; 2. Its 
manifestation.—The Christian’s art of casting 
his care upon God. ‘Oh, he that can thoroughly 
learn this casting will experience the truth of 
Peter’s assertions. But he that does not learn 
this casting remains a cast-away, a broken and 
subjugated man, an outcast and cast off.”” Luther. 
—Grace is a river which flows downwards.—Hu- 
mility, the most precious attire.—The mighty 
hand of the wrath and grace of God.—The 
Christian’s way leads from the crowd to open 
space, from the depth to the height.—As the 
devil tempts men especially to unbelief, so he can 
only be resisted with firm faith.—The most pow- 
erful consolation is in the cross. 

Srarke:—Humility, the most lowly virtue, is 
the highest in value, for it brings grace; rain 
moistens the deep valleys; lowly violets are fra- 
grant. Pride, the portrait of Satan, and an 
abomination to God; a poison which mars and 
corrupts whatever is good. Flee, soul, from this 
serpent, which has bitten many saints, and, as it 
were, cast them out of heaven.—Art thou high, 
God is higher; strong, God is stronger; mighty, 
God is more mighty; eminent, God is majestic. 
Thou art under (less than) God, humble thyself 
under Him. Sir, iii. 20.—We must suffer before 
we can come to honour, and God tests our hu- 
mility by suffering, to see whether it be worthy 
of honour, Proy. xy. 33.—Humility is not a mer- 
itorious cause of exaltation, but a way to it, Col. 
111. 8. 4.—We must cast our care upon God not 


especially in what belongs to the state of grace. 
Then we may feel assured that in God’s might, 
through faith, we shall be preserved unto salva- 
tion, ch. i. 5.—Man is like a pilgrim passing 
through a forest inhabited by bears and lions, 
and lodging ata place which is the home of 
robbers and murderers. Satan, holding unbe- 
lievers already in his power and in his claws, 
directs his most earnest endeavours against the 
godly.—Burdening oneself with eating and drink- 
ing, cares of living, and fleshly security, opens 
the gate and the door to the devil, that he may 
catch and ruin men.—Satan is strongly armed, 
but vincible. Faith is the best weapon, arm thy- 
self with it for offensive and defensive warfare, 
Eph. vi. 16.—Nobody suffers anything new, sin- 
gular or strange. Others before you also have 
made experience of it; the devil does not remit 
it to any.—Believers must always be combating, 
if not with men, yet with the devil and his an- 
gels. Earthly weapons are of no avail, but faith 
conduces to victory, Job vii. 1; Heb. xi. 30, etc. 
—High calling of men! not to a royal wedding, 
not to the receiving of a transitory heritage but 
to the eternal glory of God. O what riches! 
what honour and grace! 1 Thess. ii. 12.—Thou 
thinkest that thou hast to suffer along time: vain 
conceit! Is not thy whole life short, how then 
can thy suffering be long? 2 Cor. iv. 17.—Every- 
thing with God, from God, to God! Is. xl. 29.— 
He who always talks of his human weakness as 
presenting a barrier to earnestness in the Chris- 
tian life is virtually denying the God of all grace. 
Rev. xxi. 8. 

Roos:—Confirming is opposed to being over- 
powered by outward sufferings and inward temp- 
tations; strengthening to weakness, timidity and 
want of courage exhibited in the confession of 
the name of Christ, and in doing His will. 
Grounding is an exhibition of grace, whereby 
Christ and the Gospel preached by the Apostles, 
are made so clear to the soul, that it always 
knows why it does or suffers anything. _ 

HERBERGER:—1. What should be our deport- 
ment in adversity, and in evil days? 2. What 
should be our deportment in prosperity and in 
good days? 8. What we ought to say, if fortune 
smiles or frowns on us? 

Strer:—The way in which we must persevere, 
after having come to Christ, and the great perils 
of this way. These are: 1. The pride of our 
own heart; 2. the temptation and seduction in 
the world around us. 

Kaprr:—The great blessing of humility. 1. It 
finds favour with God and with men; 2. it is a 
power against Satan; 3. it imparts strength in 
suffering. 

Staupt:—How one resists the adversary: 1. By 
humility; 2. by freedom from care; 3. by so- 
briety; 4. with a firm faith; 5. with the remem- 
brance of these sufferings of the brethren, of 
the calling to glory and of the faithful and mighty 
God. 

[Le1anton:—Ver. 5. The hoary head is in- 
deed a crown; but when? when found in the 
way of righteousnéss, Proy. xvi. 81. There it 
shines and has a kind of royalty over youth: 
otherwise a graceless old age is a most despica- 
ble and lamentable sight. What gains an unholy 


only in things temporal but also in things spiritual, | old man or woman, by their scores of years, but 


CHAP. V. 5-11. 


the more scores of guiltiness and misery? And 
their white hairs speak nothing but whiteness 
for wrath. 

Humility.—That the Christian put on that (the 
thing itself), not the appearance of it, to act in 
as a stage-garment, but the truth of it, as their 
constant habit, be clothed with humility. It 
must appear in your outward carriage... . It 
is seen as a modest man’s or woman’s apparel, 
which they wear not for that end, that it may be 
seen, and do not gaudily flaunt and delight in 
dressing; though there is a decency as well as 
necessity, which they do and may have respect 
to, yet that in so neat and unaffected a way, that 
they are a good example, even in that point. 
Thus humility in carriage and words is as the 
decorum of this clothing, but the main end is 
the real usefulness of it.—Rebecca’s beauty and 
jewels were covered with a veil; but when they 
did appear, the veil set them off and commended 
them, though at a distance it hid them.—O hu- 
mility! the virtue of Christ, (that which He so 
peculiarly espoused) how dost thou confound the 
vanity of our pride!—One says well, ‘‘that he 
who carries other graces without humility, car- 
ries a precious powder in wind without a cover.” 

But He giveth grace.—Pours it out plentifully 
upon humble hearts. His sweet dews and showers 
of grace slide off the mountains of pride and fall 
on the low valleys of humble hearts and make 
them pleasant and fertile. 


Ver. 6. His gracious design is to make much 
room for grace by much humbling..... It is 
necessary time and pains that is given to the un- 
ballasting of a ship, casting out the earth and 
sand, when it is to be laden with spices. We 
must be emptied more, if we would have of that 
fulness and riches which we are longing for. 


Ver. 7. The whole golden mines of all spirit- 
ual comfort and good are His, the spirit itself. 
Then will He not furnish what is fit for thee, if 
thou humbly attend on Him and lay the care of 
providing for thee upon His wisdom and love? 
This were the sure way to honour Him with what 
we have, and to obtain much of what we have 
not; for certainly He deals best with those that 
do most absolutely refer all to Him. 

Vv. 8. 9. That we may watch, it concerns us to 
be sober. The instruction is military, and a 
drunken soldier is not fit to be on the watch. 

Ver. 10. As the first, perfect, implies more clear- 
ly than the rest, their advancement in victory 
over their remaining corruptions and infirmities 
and their progress towards perfection. Stablish 
has more express reference to both the inward 
lightness and inconstancy than is natural to us, 
the counter-blasts of persecutions and tempta- 
tations and to outward oppositions, and imports 
the curing of the one and support against the 
other. Strengthen, the growth of other graces, 
especially gaining of further measures of those 
graces wherein they are weakest and lowest. 


93 


And settle, though it seems the same, and in sub- 
stance is the same with the other word stablish, 
yet it adds somewhat to it very considerably ; for 
it signifies to found or fix upon a sure foundation, 
and so indeed may have an aspect to Him who is 
the foundation and strength of believers, on whom 
they build by faith, even Jesus Christ, in whom 
we have all both victory over sin and increase of 
grace, establishment of spirit, and power to per- 
severe against all difficulties and assaults, Is. 
xxvili. 16; Matt. vii. 24-29.—M. ] 


[Ver. 5. Beware of the pride of humility. 
Ver. 7. Most of our cares are either imaginary 
or about unnecessaries. Faith and trust in God, 
the infallible remedy for them.—Ver. 8. Our 
enemy is expert in the variation of his tactics; 
defeated, he is even more dangerous than victo- 
rious. ov δίδωσιν ἀνάπαυσιν, οὐδέ νικῶν, οὐδέ νικώ- 
μενος. Plato in Vita Marcel.—Vur. 9. The mo- 
tives to resistance are thus strongly put by Ter- 
tullian, Lib. ad Martyr, 3: ‘Stat conflictus con- 
spector et victorix, Agonothetes, Deus vivus: Xys- 
tarches, Spiritus Sanctus: Epistates, Christus Jesus: 
Corona, xternitatis brabium, angelice in celis sub- 
stantix politia, gloriain secula seculorum.”’—VxEn. 10. 
The God of all grace.—Mohammed heads every 
surat or chapter (with the exception of one) of 
the Koran with the words Bismillahi, arrahmant 
arraheemt, signifying, “Τὰ the name of the most 
merciful God,” or, as some prefer, ‘‘ In the name 
of the God of all grace.” Savary says: ‘This 
formula is expressly recommended in the Koran. 
The Mohammedans pronounce it whenever they 
slaughter an animal, at the commencement of 
their reading and of all important actions. It 
is with them that which the sign of the cross is 
with Christians. Gidab, one of their celebrated 
authors, says, that when these words were sent 
down from heaven, the clouds fled on the side of 
the east, the winds were lulled, the sea was moved, 
the animals erected their ears to listen, the devils 
were precipitated from the celestial spheres,” 
etc.—M. ] 


[Ver. 5. Parkuurst: The original word, here 
rendered ‘‘ be clothed,” is very beautiful and ex- 
pressive. It signifies to clothe properly with 
an outer ornamental garment tied loosely upon 
the wearer with knots. And it implies, that the 
humility of Christians, which is one of the most 
ornamental graces of their profession, should con- 
stantly appear in all their conversation, so as to 
strike the eye of every beholder, and that this 
amiable grace should be so closely connected with 
their persons, that no occurrence, temptation or 
calamity should be able to strip them of it.—M. | 

[Ver. 8. Srannope: Be sober; the advice com- 
prises not only a temperate use of the creatures 
appointed for our sustenance and refreshment, 
but the government of our passions and desires 
in general, with respect to any objects or events 
whatsoever, which in this present life are wont 
to provoke them to violence and excess.—M. ] 


94 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


---:...---:--..-------.---.--:-.----,.0ὈἁςἁἨ-.-.---Ὁ --ο»-ο-,.-- ΤΤτοοοοᾶᾶρᾶρΆᾶΆᾶΆᾶρᾶ8ᾶ8ᾶᾶκᾶ.Ψ.Φκ“Φ... 


CHAPTER V. 12-14. 


ANALYSIS :—Remarks on the object of the Apostle’s writing, salutations and benediction. 


12 


By Silvanus, a’ faithful brother unto you,? as I suppose,’ I have written briefly,‘ 


13 exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.’ ®The 
church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mar- 
14 cus my son. Greet’ ye one another with a kiss of charity.2 Peace be with you all 


that are in Christ Jesus. Amen. 


The first of Peter. | 


Verse 12. [1 τοῦ πιστοῦ adeAghod.=—the faithful brother.—M.] 
ὑμῖν, not as E. V., “a faithful brother unto you,” but dependent on ἔγρα Ψα, “By Silvanus, etc., I have 


written to you.”—M.] 


[8 Better retain the position of ὡς AoyéGomac in the original, and render, “ By Silvanus, the faithful bro- 


ther, as I reckon, etc.”—M. 


4 δὶ OAC yw v—=in (by means of ) few words.—M.] 
Seis nv στῆτε. A.B. Cod. Colb. Cod. Sin., so Lachmann and Alford; eis ἣν ἑστήκατε--Κ.!,., Tischen- 


dorf and others. 


The weight of authority is on the side of the first. 


We may render, with E. V., “in 


which ye stand,” or, with Alford, “in which stand ye.”—M.] 
Verse 18. [6 ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή---" She that is elected together with you in Babylon; soGerman. See 


note below.—M.] 


8 A kiss of love.—M.] 


Verse 14. f Better renderagmdcace a8 ἀσπάζεται, V. 18, “salute.”—M.] 


® Rec. with K. L., and many versions inserts ina od after xpit70.—M.] 
[0 The subscription πετροὺ A. occurs in A. B.; Sin. tov aytov arostohov TETPOV χαθολιχη 


επιςτολὴ a L.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 12. By Silvanus—in few words.— 
Silvanus is very probably the same as Silas, Acts 
xy. 22. 27. 32. 84, 40; xvi. 19. 25. 29; xvii. 10. 14; 
xvili. 5; the companion of St. Paul (1 Thess. i. 1; 
2 Thess.i.1; 2Cor.i.9). He accompanied the 
Apostle on his second missionary journey, and 
was with him at Corinth in A. D. 58. Acts xviii. 5. 
The statements of Lachmann, that Silvanus and 
Silas are different persons, cannot be substan- 
tiated. See Weiss.—iviv is to be joined with 
ἔγραψα, not with τοῦ πιστοῦ, which would require: 
τοῦ ὑμῖν πιστοῦ. Grotius explains ἔγραψα of a lost 
Epistle, but this is quite arbitrary, cf. 2 Pet. iii. 1. 
I wrote by Silvanus, may mean, I have called in 
his assistance in writing; this exposition seems 
to be sustained by the tradition, that Peter was 
obliged to use an amanuensis; or rather, I send 
you this Epistle by the hand of Silvanus, so Acts 
xv. 28, and in the subscriptions of several of 
Paul’s Epistles.—The apposition τοῦ πιστοῦ, of the 
brother faithful to Jesus and the Church, and 
worthy of all confidence, and the circumstance 
that v. 18 specifies no salutation from him, favour 
the latter view. But ὡς λογίζομαι, I reckon, I 
suppose, is decisive. Some connect it with δὲ 
ὀλιγῶν: I have written in few words, it seems to 
me, as I think, considering the importance of the 
subject. But such an apposition would have been 
more appropriate in Heb. xiii. 22, Hence others 
join it with τοῦ πιστοῦ, saying that Peter did not 
know, from personal experience, the fidelity of 
Silvanus in his peculiar relation to those congre- 
gations. Still this would not fail to indicate a 
problematical opinion of this brother, even though 
ὡς λογίζομαι should be rendered, “as I am fully 
convinced concerning him,” cf. Rom. iii, 28; vi. 
11. Beza already remarks, that it is doubtful 
that Peter should have praised a man, who be- 


longed to the ἡγουμένοις, Acts xv. 22, in such 
vague terms, particularly if he intended to recom- 
mend him as the bearer of the Epistle. The 
most natural exposition is obtained by connect- 
ing ὡς λογίζομαι With διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ἔγραψα, ““1 eal- 
culate that you will receive this Epistle by the 
hands of Silvanus,” which was the less certain 
since it was designed to pass through the hands 
of several congregations. If this interpretation 
is correct, ἔγραψα διὰ refers decidedly to the trans- 
mission, and not to the composition of the Epistle. 
[But the above exposition of ὡς λογίζομαι as con- 
nected with τοῦ πιστοῦ, is hardly exhaustive. It 
seems to be the most natural connection, and in- 
dicates, says Alford, the Apostle’s judgment con- 
cerning Silvanus, given, not in any disparage- 
ment of him, nor indicating, as De Wette and 
Bengel, that he was not known to St. Peter, but 
as fortifying him in his mission to the churches 
addressed, with the Apostle’s recommendation, 
over and above the acquaintance which the read- 
ers may already have had with him.—M. ] 

[WorpswortuH:—St. Peter avouches to his 
readers, that St. Paul’s fellow-labourer among 
them, Silas, is “their faithful brother.” He 
calls St. Mark his son, who had once faltered in 
the faith, but who had afterwards preached to 
them in Asia (See Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24), and 
whom St. Paul, writing from Rome to the churches 
of Phrygia, mentions as being there among his 
own tried and trusted friends, and calls him * Sis- 
ter’s son to Barnabas.” 

St. Paul, as well as St. Peter, now also, at the 
close of his career, writes to Timothy about the 
same time as the date of this Epistle of St. Peter, 
and bears witness that Mark ‘is profitable to him 
for the ministry,” (2 Tim. iv. 11). And St. Peter 
here joins Mark with Silas, who had once been 
preferred in his room. 

So may all wounds be healed, and all differ- 
ences cease in the Church of Christ. So may all 


CHAP. V. 12-14. 


95 


falterers be recovered, and Christian charity pre- 
vail, and God’s glory be magnified in all persons 
and in all things, through Jesus Christ !—M. ] 

δὶ ὀλίγων, an expression of modesty, and an ex- 
hortation to use the little conscientiously. 

Exhorting.—zapaxaieiv, to cheer, encourage 
and console. This is the main design of the 
Epistle, and the fulfilment of the charge Christ 
gave him: ‘Strengthen thy brethren,” Luke xxii. 
82. 

Testifying.—ériuaptvpév.—Bengel refers ἐπὶ 
to the testimony of Paul, which Peter intended 
to confirm. Without reason. It rather denotes 
the confirmation of the oral announcement they 
had received. The result, the substance of all, 
is contained in what follows. 

That this is the true grace of God, viz.: 
that you have been made partakers of the grace 
of God truly, and not only imaginarily; that you 
stand on the right foundation, from which you 
must not suffer yourselves to be pushed away; 
see ch. i, 10. 20; ii.4. By means of the preach- 
ing of the Gospel, they had been brought through 
faith to the possession and enjoyment of the 
grace of God. Therein they should stand firm 
and grow, ef. ch. i. 8. 21; 11. 7. 9. 10.—In two 
ways they might come to doubt if they were 
right and standing in the grace of God: first, by 
being surprised at their sufferings, second, by 
false teachers. ‘‘Jewish teachers of the law 
called in question, ‘Whether the Galatians were 
standing in the true grace of God.’ Afterwards 
other seducers, whom Peter denounces in his 
second Epistle, may have arisen in those coun- 
tries, and tried to make those Christians believe 
that they were not standing in the true grace of 
God.”’ Roos. 

εἰς ἣν ἑστήκατε----ἶτι which ye have come to stand 
and still stand. [See note in Appar. Crit. 
Fronmiiller considers ἑστήκατε as most authentic, 
but the probability is strong that it is a correc- 
tion from Rom. vy. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 2; see Alford. 
—M.] 

Ver. 18. She that is elected together 
with you in Babylon saluteth you.— 
«The design of the salutation which follows is 
to assure them that other believers have their 
perseverance in the faith and ultimate salvation 
greatly at heart.”—7 ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή.--- 
The most current exposition is that it denotes a 
congregation at Babylon, cf. ch.i. 1. So the an- 
cient versions, the fathers and reformers down to 
the eighteenth century; see Weiss. The view of 
others, who explain it of Peter’s wife or some 
noble lady at Babylon, has in its favour the cir- 
cumstance that the names of individuals are men- 
tioned immediately before and after this saluta- 
tion; but it would be rather singular that Peter 
should describe his wife or another lady so peri- 
phrastically as she that is elected together with 
you in Babylon. This would require: my co- 
elect (one) who is now in Babylon. 2 Jno. i. 13 
probably refers to a congregation. Hofmann. 
Wiesinger.—Some expositors see in Babylon a 
reference to Rome, on account of its hostility to 
Christianity, cf. Rev. xiv. 8; xvii. 5. 18; xviii. 
2.10; others to Jerusalem, and others again to 
Babylon in Egypt, but which was only a Roman 
military post. We prefer, with Weiss, the expo- 


sition according to which the literal Babylon in 
Chaldea is meant, although we have no account 
of a journey of Peter to Babylon. The desig- 
nation of Rome by the term Babylon seems only 
to fit a later period, and to be ill-suited to the style 
of the Epistle and the sending of salutations. 
According to Schottgen, the Jews did not begin 
to call Rome Babylon until after the destruction 
of Jerusalem. 

Marcus, my son.—Probably not his actual 
son, as we have no information on that head, 
but his spiritual son, Mark the Evangelist, ef. 
Acts xa 2) Cole iv. TOs Phils ΧΕΙ: τ ume 
11; 2 Tim. i. 2; 1 Cor. iv. 15; Gal. iv. 19; Matt. 
xii. 27. Papias reports him to have been Peter’s 
interpreter, so Tertullian and Clement of Alex- 
andria. But the statements of these fathers do 
not warrant the inference that the Epistle was 
written in Rome, as a spurious subscription in 
several manuscripts declares. 

Ver. 14. Salute ye one another ina kiss 
of love.—Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 
Thess. v. 26; Rom. xvi. 16. The custom of a 
holy brotherly kiss was at that time universally 
observed among Christians. ‘It was designed 
to be the seal of His love in whose name they 
kissed one another, but also the seal of their own 
mutual love, for without taking its existence for 
granted such a charge could hardly have been 
given.”’ Wiesinger. [For a full account of this 
custom, see Winer, Real- Wérterbuch, s. vy. Kuss. 
—M. 

Beans ac Bay, see ch. i. 2; Rom. 
xvi. 24; Eph. vi. 28. 24; 3 Jno. 15. It is the 
peace flowing from grace. It is enjoyed only by 
those who are in Christ Jesus, but by a// thus 
situated, 1 Cor. i. 8; Phil. i. 2; Col. 1. 2.—ayqv 
is wanting in many manuscripts. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Which are the infallible marks of the state of 
grace? ‘It is a great guilt to make those who 
stand in the true grace of God doubt their state 
of grace, or at least to endeavour to make them 
believe that they will always remain beginners 
in Christianity, because, forsooth, they are un- 
willing to castigate their bodies with some un- 
commonly hard discipline, to join some peculiar 
party, and to receive some uncommonly high and 
profound wisdom of which that party, without 
any warrant of Holy Writ, makes boast, cf. Gal. 
VOR Oa iete tite Win oma OOS: 

SrarkE:—Believers stand ever in need both 
of instruction and exhortation to constancy un- 
der the cross in the course of Christianity, Prov. 
ix. 9.—Many a one may imagine himself to stand 
in grace, though he is under wrath and losing his 
hope. How much depends upon one’s being 
found in the true grace of God, and of being vi- 
tally assured thereof both inwardly and out- 
wardly, 2 Tim. iii. 5.—It was a custom of long 
duration that each sex, male and female sepa- 
rately, kissed, Lke. vii. 45. 46. Peace and Christ, 
the Prince of Peace, go together.—Whoso desir- 
eth peace, must be in Christ. Whoso is in Him 
has true peace with all the blessings of salvation 
forever and ever, Jno. xvi. 89. 


96 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


Lisco:—Do you stand in the grace of God? 

Lane papa testify the true grace of God 
—the end of our preaching.—M. ] 

[Neanper:—‘The fraternal kiss with which 
every one, after being baptized, was received in- 
to the community, by the Christians into whose 
immediate fellowship he entered — which the 
members bestowed on each other just before the 
celebration of the Communion, and with which 
every Christian saluted his brother, though he 
never saw him before—was not an empty form, 
but the expression of Christian feelings, a token 


of the relation in which Christians conceived 
themselves to stand to each other. It was this, 
indeed, which, in a cold and selfish age, struck 
the Pagans with wonder: to behold men of dif- 
ferent countries, ranks, stages of culture, so in- 
timately bound together; to see the stranger who 
came into a city, and by his letter of recognition 
(his Epistola formata) made himself known to the 
Christians of the place as a brother beyond sus- 
picion, finding at once among them to whom he 
was personally unknown all manner of brotherly 
sympathy and protection.” —M. ] 


THE 


SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


PND ODUCTION: 


2 1. OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE. 


Tuts Epistle is designed to be a hortatory memorial addressed to believers, standing and al- 
ready established in the truth, as appears plainly from ch. 1. 12.15. The first Epistle deals with 
warnings against dangers and enemies from without; the second warns Christians against the 
more dangerous enemies from within, and exhorts them to vigilance and resistance to the de- 
ceivers and scoffers, who had gradually crept into the Christian churches. ‘“‘ Beware, lest ye also, 
being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness,” (ch. i. 17).— 
“Use with all diligence the received gifts of grace to the furthering of your holiness,” ch. i. 3, ete. 
The rich contents of the Epistle concentrate in this exhortation. The motives to a holy life are 
chiefly taken from the consideration of the nearness of the coming of Christ and the catastrophes 
connected with that event, ch. iii. 11, etc. The deceivers against whom Peter warns his readers, 
are described not so much intellectually as morally. They are men of the Sadducee cast of mind, 
libertines, antinomists, living in uncleanness, unrighteousness and covetousness, according to the 
promptings of their own lusts, ch. ii. 10. 3.14, some of whom scoffed at the truth, and particularly 
at the coming of Christ, ch. iii. 8. 4, etc. They used great swelling words of vanity, spoke evil 
of dignities and the celestial powers, and derided the Lord that bought them, ch. 11. 1. 18. 10. 
Their wisdom consisted in lying, blaspheming, and the promise of unbridled licence, ch. 11. 19. 
Here we may discern the roots of the antinomistic Gnosis, which afterwards was maintained by 
Carpocrates, Epiphanes, Prodicus, the Simonians, the Antitactes, and others. Similar errors are 
referred to by Paul, 1 Tim. iv. 1; vi. 20; 2 Tim. iii. 1, etc.; cf. Rev. ii. 14. 15. 20. The author 
predicts their appearance, and prophetically sees them already extant, ch. ii. 1, etc.; 10, etc. Their 
false knowledge is opposed by the vital knowledge of Christ, on which great stress is laid in this 
Epistle, ch. 1. 2. 3. 8; ἢ. 20. 


22. CONTENTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 


The Epistle consists of two parts: the first, ch. i, 1-21; the second, from ch. 11. 1—i. 18. 
Each of these parts are again divided into two sections. In the first section of the first part, ch. 
i. 211, the Apostle reminds his readers of the great and precious riches and promises which had 
been vouchsafed to them on the part of God, and exhorts them on their part to comply with the 
demand of the Divine Will, and to make their calling and election sure. In the second section, 
ch, 1. 12-21, he specifies the motive which then constrained him to exhort them, viz., the near- 


4 THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


ness of his decease; he then, v. 16, etc., confirms the truth of the doctrine in which they had been 
instructed: 1. By the fact that he and all the Apostles had been eye-witnesses of the works of 
Jesus; 2. By the testimony of prophecy. In the first section of the second part, he announces 
the speedy appearance of false prophets, gives a brief sketch of their character and conduct, and 
adverts, by way of warning, to three examples, to show that their wickedness would surely be 
punished, ch. ii. 1-10, the examples being, the case of the fallen angels, the case of those who 
perished in the waters of the flood, and the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. Then follows the more 
specific description of their thorough carnality, their presumptuousness, their spirit of rebellion 
and blasphemy, their brutal want of reason, their licentiousness, their perseverance in evil, their 
covetousness, their seductive arts, their vaunting with all their nothingness and emptiness, their 
perverseness, obduracy and perdition, v. 10-22. The fiery flow of prophetical utterance having 
found a point of rest, the Apostle, in the second section, resumes at ch. 1. 15, states the design of 
his writing still more*clearly than in ch. i. 15, to be the stirring up of their pure minds. He re- 
fers to a still more dangerous class of enemies of Christ, to mockers, who scoff at the coming of 
Christ and the events connected with it, and who in their Epicurean bias are on a level with the 
former, ch. iii. 1-5. He then refutes the vain reason they assign for their denial of the coming 
of Christ, by the fact of the flood (v. 5-7), followed by the instruction given to believers, that the 
heavens and the earth will be destroyed by fire in a fearful catastrophe, and that the apparent 
delay of judgment should be considered as an act of the long-suffering of God, v. 7-10. Then 
follows, for the edification of believers, the announcement of the Lord’s coming, and of the mighty 
events connected with it, especially the establishment of new heavens and a new earth. With 
this is connected an earnest exhortation to holiness of life, v. 10-15. He strengthens the weight 
of his exhortations by a reference to the Epistles of Paul, with whom he professes himself tho- 
roughly to agree, while those destroyers of the peace of the Churches probably maintained that 
Peter and Paul were at variance with each other, v. 15. 16. In conclusion, he exhorts them not 
to suffer themselves to be moved from their stedfastness by the error of wicked men, but to grow 
in grace and the knowiedge of Jesus Christ, as a chief means for the conservation of the faith. 
Lastly, a doxology to Christ. 


23. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 


The authenticity of no writing of the New Testament has been so much denied and doubted 
in ancient and modern times, as that of this Epistle. Modern critics consider it proven, that a 
pseudo-Peter of a later period clumsily manufactured this Epistle from that of Jude. Misled by 
their confident assertions, even circumspect investigators have here and there assented to this 
result. 

Beginning with the external testimonies of this Epistle, we have the fact that it was ecclesias- 
tically acknowledged as part of the Canon in the fourth century, (Guerike, Gesammigeschichte 
des Neuen Testaments, p. 477. 615). Going backwards from this fixed point of time, we find that 
Jerome considered it genuine, observing, however, that it was generally held to be spurious on 
account of the difference of its style from the First. Eusebius, it is well known, reckons it among 
the Antilegomena, describes it as not included in the then received Canon of the Church, although 
many considered it profitable, and used it along with the other Scriptures. Origen says: Peter 
has left an Epistle which is universally acknowledged; perhaps (ἔστω δὲ) also a second, for it is 
doubted—one is not agreed about it. He cites, however, the second Epistle as part of the 
Holy Scriptures in several passages, cf. Dietlein, p. 61, etc. The Syriac version, the Peschito, 
which originated at the latest in the third century, does not contain it; it is not known on what 
grounds. It is also wanting in the Muratorian Canon, which however does not mention the first 
Epistle and other Epistles of the New Testament. Tertullian and Cyprian do not mention it; 
Eusebius states that Clement of Alexandria wrote a commentary on it and other Antilegomena. 
Justin and Ireneeus probably allude to 2 Peter iii. 8; the latter also to 2 Peter ii. 4-6, and the 
former also to 2 Peter ii. 1. Theophilus of Antioch seems to refer to 2 Peter i. 19, 21; 11.3. The 
Epistle of Hermas, about the middle of the second century, contains almost undeniable references 
to 2 Pet. ii. 15. 20. 22; iii, 8; i1.5-8. In Barnabas, whose Epistle perhaps reaches down to the end 


23. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 5 


of the first century, Dietlein perceives several allusions, the clearest of which is that to 2 Peter 
i. 8, which is however not certain, because this saying occurs also in the Mishnah. In Clement 
of Rome, Dietlein discovers massive proofs, by which this author testifies in favour of our Epistle 
even before the destruction of Jerusalem. A certain affinity of language cannot be denied, but 
the citations of Dietlein, among which the expression of ἡ μεγαλοπρεπὴς δόξα is the most weighty, 
will hardly do more than carry conviction to the minds of those who are already sure of the ge- 
nuineness of the Epistle. The same applies to the Epistle of Polycarp. Huther justly maintains 
that not a single sentence is cited literally from 2 Peter, as is the case with 1 Peter. Nor 
can Ignatius be proved to be dependent on 2 Peter, although there are several distant allu- 
sions. It follows, from the preceding data, that the Epistle was used about the middle of the 
second century; that the earliest fathers cannot be proved to have used it; that it gave rise to 
doubts in the third century, which however arose on internal grounds; and that its genuineness 
was established by the Church at the end of the fourth century. The supposition of Thiersch is 
altogether inadequate, that fears were entertained that too early a disclosure of the whole form 
of the evil, as given in the thunder-words of Peter, might have exerted a soliciting influence on 
the evil, and even on its manifestation in that time, which was shaken to all the depths of the 
spiritual world (that is, the time when the Canon of the Homologowmena was fixed). Now, since 
no certain result can be arrived at from external evidence, which however ‘rather favours than 
disfavours the genuineness of our Epistle, we are so much the more dependent, 

Secondly, on internal evidence, under which head we have to offer the following remarks: 

1. We encounter in the Epistle a person concerning whom we feel that he stands in the grace 
and knowledge of Jesus Christ, that he loves truth above all things, ch. 1. 3; 11. 18; 1.12; that 
he has received the forgiveness of sins, and along with it, a Divine vital energy, ch. 1. 9. 10. 2; 
that he is thoroughly in earnest about Christianity, ch. i. 5, etc.; 111. 14.17; that he has personal 
intercourse with Christ Jesus, ch. i. 14; that he looks stedfastly at His coming, and hastens to 
meet the coming of His day, ch. 11. 12; that he fears the judgments of eternity, ch. 11. 1, etc., and 
is penetrated with the sense of the superintending justice of God, ch. 11. 9; that he cultivates with 
all diligence a holy conversation and a godly life, and feels constrained to oppose fine-spun fables 
with the severity of truth, οἢ. 11. 16. This spirit, thus enlightened and animated with the earnest- 
ness of Christianity, calls himself Simon Peter, a Servant and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, ch. 1. 1; 
ii, 2; he speaks in the spirit of prophecy, ch. ii. 1, etc.; ii. 3; he specifies details of his life, that 
he had been an eye-witness of Christ’s transfiguration on the holy mount, ch. 1. 16, etc., that 
Jesus had revealed to him the nearness of His death, ch. i. 14; he describes himself as the brother 
and colleague of the Apostle Paul, with whose Epistles he professes fully to agree, ch. 11. 15. 16, 
and considers it his duty to remind, strengthen and stir up the believers to whom he writes, ch. 
1. 12, ete.; 11. 1. 2. His doctrines, exhortations, confessions, testimonies and warnings are full 
of power and fire, full of firm assurance and glowing zeal for the honour of the Lord, full of em- 
phasis and originality. If Peter is really the author of this Epistle, every thing is in glorious 
harmony; if he is not, we have before us an insoluble psychological riddle. Is it possible, we are 
constrained to ask, that a man, animated through and through with the spirit of Christianity, 
who expressly renounces all cunning fabrications, should have set up for the Apostle Peter, and 
have written this Epistle in his name? Intentional fraud and such illumination—who is able 
to reconcile them? 

2. If, as many critics superficially assume, a deceiver did father this Epistle upon Peter, he 
must have done so with some evil intention. But where is there any thing in this Epistle that 
could possibly be construed into an error, or a moral impurity? On the supposition that the ob- 
ject was the mediation between the Apostles of the Jews and the Apostles of the Gentiles, the 
alleged antithesis unfortunately resolves itself into a fiction (see a citation from Clement of Rome, 
in Dietlein, p. 30. 31), and the contents of the Epistle, in that case, ought to be very different 
from what they are. An otherwise honest man would not have ventured to place the name of 
the Apostle at the head of his writing for the purpose of attacking false teachers (Olshausen, 
Nachweis der Aichtheit, etc., p. 124). 

3. A forger would not have omitted to designate with greater precision the readers for whom 


the Epistle was written, while the author with the utmost ingenuousness addresses those who 
11. 


6 THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


have obtained the like precious faith, and RS to meet the same class of saa as in the cae 
Epistle. 

4. The second Epistle is an integrant part of the first, which deals with external ΕΣ while 
the second Epistle cautions against internal adversaries of the truth. The two cannot well be 
separated from each other, 

5. The doctrinal contents of the second Epistle essentially agree with the first in the concep- 
tion of Christianity as the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, ch. i. 19-21, and in the promi- 
nence given to the coming of Christ, as we have seen in the Apostle of hope in the first Epistle, 
ch. ui. 10, ete. The second Epistle is not inferior to the first in spirit, power, vivacity and glow- 
ing zeal against evil, in originality and wealth of thought, and no production of the second cen- 
tury can compare with it in this respect. Compare the Shepherd of Hermas with the second 
Epistle of Peter—what a contrast! How beautiful, in particular, is the opening of the Epistle, 
which introduces us at once into the whole plenitude of evangelical grace! The mode of repre- 
sentation in the two Epistles exhibits also many points of agreement, e. g., the connection of 
sentences by means of participles and the choice of particular expressions. Thus, Guerike men- 
tions the words ἀναστροφή, 1 Peter 1. 15. 18; 11. 12; 111. 1. 2. 16; ef. 2 Peter ii. 7; 11. 11.— ἀπόθεσις, 
1 Peter 111. 21; ef. 2 Peter i. 14.---ἀρετή, 1 Peter ii. 9; cf. 2 Peter 1. 8.---ἀλήθεια, in a peculiar sense, 
1 Peter i. 22; ef. 2 Peter 1. 12.----κομίζεσθαι, 1 Peter 1. 9; v. 4; cf. 2 Peter 11. 13.—érorrevew, 1 Peter 
11. 12; in. 2; ef. 2 Peter 1. 10.---ἄσπελος and ἄμωμος, 1 Peter i. 19; cf. 2 Peter in. 14.—On πέπαυται 
ἁμαρτίας, cf. 1 Peter iv. 1; cf. 2 Peter ii. 12. 

6. The Epistle, if written by Peter, admirably fits in the history of the development of the 
Christian Church. This has been well brought out by Thiersch, who says: “Supposing the 
Epistle were not the production of Peter, it cannot, because of the sum-total of its contents, be- 
long to any other period of history than to that of that great catastrophe, the mighty breaking 
forth of an unparalleled wicked Gentile Gnosis, which was posterior to the ministry of Paul, and 
anterior to that of John.” 

7. The objections raised on internal grounds against the Epistle, are not of great moment. 

a. It is alleged that ἐλπίς is the leading idea of the first Epistle, while ἐπίγνωσις predominates 
in the latter. This is the natural consequence of the different tendencies of the two Epistles. Is 
it probable that both would move in the same fundamental ideas? 

b. That the day of Christ’s coming is expected in the first as about to take place immediately, 
while the author of the second Epistle adverts not so much to its nearness as to its suddenness. 
This may be accounted for by the comparatively early date of the composition of the first Epistle. 
See Introduction to 1 Peter. ὶ 

ce. That the idea of Christ’s advent in the second Epistle is altogether kept in the back-ground 
of that of the final destruction of the world. This is quite correct, according to ch. 3 ii. 10, and 
the second Epistle completes in this respect the discourses of the first. 

d. That in the first Epistle the redemptive acts of the death and resurrection of Christ are 
described as the groundwork of the Christian life, whereas they are not mentioned in the second. 
Evidently because the caution against seducers is the tendency of the second Epistle, which pre- 
supposes those redemptive acts. 

e. That the ideas of communion with the Divine nature, of the origin of the world out of 
water, and that of its destruction by fire, are peculiar to the second Epistle. But there is no 
reason why there should not be ideas peculiar to this Epistle. 

f. That faith in the second Epistle stands in the back-ground, and knowledge in the fore- 
ground. This is the necessary adjunct of the controversy with the adherents of the false Gnosis, 
and said ἐπίγνωσις does not differ materially from πίστις. 

g. De Wette says, that Κύριος is applied, ch. ii. 10, to God. But this is also occasionally 
the case in the first Epistle, 1 Peter iii, 12. 15. 

_ ἢ. That the heretical denial of the coming of Christ, and the view of the origin and destruc- 
tion of the world, are surprising and, as Neander thinks, not in keeping with the practical, simple 
mind of Peter and the doctrinal development of the New Testament. But even Huther is con- 
strained to pronounce this a purely subjective opinion, 

ὦ. The diversity of style in the two Epistles, which were already alleged in ancient times, 


@ 4. RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THAT OF JUDE. 7 


are not very important and counterbalanced by the aforementioned, obvious coincidences of lan- 
guage. Even if they were greater than they are, we might assume, with Jerome, that Peter 
used different amanuenses in the composition of the two Epistles. See Olshausen, p. 118. 

k. That 2 Peter iii. 15, seems to assume that a collection of the Epistles of St. Paul was al- 
ready circulating in the Church. But the reference here is not to a complete collection of his 
writings. 

7. Neander raises the doubt, that the author assumes a different relation to his readers, in 
the second Epistle, from that which existed between them in the first, for according to the second 
Epistle they must have been personally instructed by the Apostle; but in the interval between 
the dates of the two Epistles, a closer personal relation between them may easily have sprung up. 

Thus all these objections and doubts are not sufficiently weighty to upset the above argu- 
ment for the genuineness of the Epistle. 

[A very excellent digest of this section, with full citations of the authorities, may be seen in 
Alford’s Prolegomena, Vol. IV., Part I—M.] 


@ 4. RELATION OF THIS EPISTLE TO THAT OF JUDE. 


The second chapter of the present Epistle to the beginning of the third chapter, and the 
Epistle of Jude, exhibit so remarkable an agreement, that the dependence of the one Epistle on 
the other is undeniable, cf. Jude 4. 6-13. 16, with 2 Peter 11. 1. 4. 6. 10-13. 15. 17. 18; Jude 17. 
18, with 2 Peter ii. 2.8. The view which makes the Epistle of Jude the original that was used 
by the author of the second Epistle of Peter, stated by Herder, has become dominant in modern 
times. This is the view of De Wette, Guerike, Huther and Kurz, who allege that the language 
of Jude is more simple than that in 2 Peter, and that many passages in the latter cannot be tho- 
roughly understood without the light derived from the Epistle of Jude. But that assumption is 
opposed on weighty grounds, by Hofmann ( Weissagung und Hrfillung), Thiersch, Stier and 
Dietlein. It is rightly contended, that at the time of the composition of the Epistle of Jude, the 
false teachers had already appeared, whereas in the second Epistle of Peter their appearance is 
simply predicted, ch. ii. 1, etc.; and that the second Epistle of Peter is free from the apparently 
apocryphal elements contained in that of Jude. Dietlein attempts to prove the originality of the 
second Epistle of Peter in every respective passage; and although he has not always succeeded, 
we can hardly withhold our assent in some passages. Those who, like ourselves, are profoundly 
impressed with the authenticity of the second Hpistle of Peter, deem it @ priori highly improbable 
that Peter, the Prince of Apostles,—that illumined and highly-gifted man, who proves his origi- 
nality in the first Epistle as well as in 2 Peter i. and ii.—should have borrowed, in a part of his 
Epistle, the language, figures and examples of a.man evidently less gifted than himself. Espe- 
cially remarkable, moreover, would be his silence concerning Jude, seeing that he made mention 
of Paul and his Epistles. If we add to this the fact that the second Epistle is rich in peculiar 
expressions, that the three chapters contain more than twenty ἅπαξ λεγόμευα, that the Epistle of 
Jude expressly refers to the words of the Apostles, v. 17, and specifies that it was quickly com- 
posed to meet a particular emergency, v. 3, the hypothesis that Jude made use of the second 
Epistle of Peter, is more probable than that Peter made use of the Epistle of Jude. We call 
particular attention to the word ἐμπαῖκται, Jude 18; cf. 2 Peter in. 3, which does not occur else- 
where in the New Testament. 

[Those who wish to study this question in all its bearings, are referred to Briickner’s Ex- 
cursus on 2 Peter ii., in his edition of De Wette’s Handbuch, Vol. I., Part II1., pp. 163-170, who 
maintains the priority of St. Jude and St. Peter’s acquaintance with his Epistle, but vindicates 
the independence of the latter; to Huther’s Appendix to his Commentary on the Epistle, David- 
son, Introduction, etc., Vol. III., pp. 399-408. Alford, in his Prolegomena to this Epistle, Section 
3, pronounces for the priority of St. Jude. Wordsworth reaches the opposite conclusion, which 13 
also the opinion of Oecumenius, Estius, Mill, Benson, Witsius, Dodwell, Lenfant, Beausobre, 
Hengstenberg and Heydenreich, besides the authors named by Fronmiuller. For convenience’ 
sake, I have given the most important parallel passages in the Introduction to St. Jude’s Epistle, 
to which the reader is referred. —M. ] 


8 THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


ᾷ ὅ. DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


Mayerhoff undertakes to prove that it was composed by a Jewish Christian at Alexandria, 
about the middle of the second century. Schwegler considers the end of the second century to 
be the earliest date of its origin. Huther ascribes it to the beginning of the second century. 
This disagreement among critics entirely ignores, first, that the intellectual strength which cha- 
racterizes this Epistle, is not found elsewhere in the second century; and secondly, that the ap- 
pearance of the seducers, against whom this Epistle is directed, coincides, according to the notices 
found in the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul and in the Revelation of St. John, with the very period 
to which the Epistle, which must have been written shortly before his death, introduces us. “At 
the beginning of the second period of the Apostolical age, the Gentile Gnostic apostacy broke out 
with gigantic energy in the Churches of Asia. Paul had finished his work, but Peter was still 
destined to raise his warning voice before the end of his life.” Thiersch. 


26. LITERATURE. 


The same works specified in the Introduction to the first Epistle, viz.: those of GERHARD, 
Catov, Rieger, StarKE, De Werte, HurHer, and particularly Drertern, Second Epistle of 
Peter, 1851. 

[De arqumento epist. Petri posterioris et Jude Catholicarum, in Crit. Sacr. Thes. Nov., 

ΠῚ 982. 
Bp. SHERLOCK: The Authority of the Second Epistle of St. Peter, Works, IV., 137. 
Srupson: Commentary on 2 Peter. 4to. London, 1632. 
Apams, THomas: A Commentary on the Second Epistle of Peter. London, 1633. Folio. 
Imp. 8vo., 1839. 

Smitu, THomas: A Commentary on the Second Epistle of Peter. 

Liuu1g, Joun, D.D.: The Second Epistle of Peter, the Epistles of John and Judas, and the 
Revelation. Translated from the Greek, with Notes. New York, 1854. 

Separate treatises, expositions and sermons will be referred to in the Commentary.—M]. 


COMMENTARY. 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER.’ 


CHAPTER I. 1-11. 


ANAtysts :—The brotherly salutation and prayer of blessing (v.1. 2) are followed by the exhortation: Forasmuch as 


God richly furnishes you with whatever is necessary for your spiritual life, do ye also furnish whatever is agreeable to 
His will; then the entrance to His kingdom shall be opened to you. 


1 


me co COI σὺ δι Cd Oo bo 


Simon ! Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained 
like precious faith with us through? the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus 
Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and 
of Jesus* our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things‘ that 
pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to 
glory and virtue :> Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious ® pro- 
mises ; that by these ye might be partakers" of the divine nature, having escaped ὃ the 
corruption that is in the world through lust. And besides this,® giving all diligence, 
add to your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; And to knowledge, temperance ; 
and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness; And to godliness, brotherly 
kindness; and to brotherly kindness, charity. For if these things be in you,’ and 
abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge 
of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot 
see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins." Wherefore 
the rather, brethren, give diligence? to make 15. your calling * and election sure: for 
if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance δ shall be ministered unto 
you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 


Tite. [| Steph. επίστολη πετροὺ χαθολιχὴ δευτερα: Ela: TETP. τουαποστ. επιστ. 
χαθ. δευτερα: επιστολη χαθολιχὴ δευτ.--τοὺῦ aytov αποσ- 
todov πετροῦυ. 8. al—TETPOV ETLOT. B’.C:-TMETPOVETLOT. δευτερα 


Cod. Mosq. TET POV B. A. B. Cod. Sin.—M.] 
Verse 1. Lachmann, Tischend. Ed. 7, reads vey with A. G. K. and the majority of Codd., cf. Luke iii. 30; vii. 40; 


Rev. vii. 7; Acts xv.14; Her. [YIU 


Translate: Grace to you and peace be multiplied in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.—M.] 
Verse 3.[47a πάντα A. Cod. Sin—M.] 
4% πρὺς τὸν θεόν καὶ (* * improb. τ. θ. κ΄, Tisch.) ζω ἢ ν Cod. Sin.—M.] 
ts ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ A.C. Cod. Sin—M.] Lachm. Tisch. 
[German: Forasmuch as His divine power hath given us al] things which are necessary for life and godli- 
ness, through the knowledge of Him that called us by His glory and Divine virtue. 
Translate: .... By His own glory and yirtue.—M.] 


10 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


ED 


Verse 4. [ὁ τέμ. ἡμῖν καὶ μέγιστ. B. Cod. Sin. al. Rec. ἡμῖν before καὶ τέμια, with Cod. Mosq., Cod. Angel. 
Rom.; μέγ. καὶ τίμια ἡμῖν A.B. C—M.] 


eee as κοινωνοὶ Cod. Sin.—M.] 
8 3 


τὴν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐπιθυμίαν Cod. Sin.; τῷ before κόσμῳ A.B. Cod. Angel. Rom.; ἐπιθυμίαις 


καὶ C.—M. 


[German: Through which He hath given unto us the greatest and most precious promises, that by means 
of these ye might become partakers of the Divine nature, having escaped from the corruption in 


lust which is in the world. 


Verse 5. [9 δὲ τοῦτο Cod. Sin.; αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο 


the corruption which is in the world in lust.—M.] 
ῦ ΟἿ; αὐτοὶ δὲ A; καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δὲ Rec.—M.] 


[German: But for this very reason use all your diligence, and present in your faith manly courage, in cou- 


rage discrimination. 


knowledge.—M. ] 


giving on your side(Alford) all diligence, furnish in your faith virtue, and in your virtue 


Verse 6. [German: In discrimination, self-control, and in self-control, stedfastness. ... . 


Verse 7. 
Verse 8. [0 ἡ μὦ ν C.—M.] 


ἴῃ self-control endurance. . a} 
[German: In godliness brotherly love, and in brotherly love universal charity.—M.] 


{[German: For where these things are found in you and abound, they will not let you be idle or unfruitful 


for the knowledge. .. .°- 


Translate: For these things being yours (Lillie) and multiplying, render you not idle nor yet unfruitful 


for (De Wette, Alford). ... - —M.] 


Verse 9. ΠἸ ἁμαρτημάτων A. Cod. Sin. Cod. Mosq.—M.] iets : 
[German: For he to whom these things are not present, is blind, not seeing afar off, having placed in for- 
getfulness the purification of his former sins. 
Translate: For he that lacketh these things is blind, short-sighted, having incurred forgetfulness (Alford), 


Verse 10. [2 σπου ὃ. iva διὰ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων Cod. Sin.; same addition with further ὑ μῶν A. Vulg. Syr. al.— 
M.) ἵνα διὰ τῶν καλῶν ὑμῶν ἔργων Bef. Lachmann. 


he ποιεῖσθε A—M.] ποιῆσθε, Lachmann. 


ἀπαράκλησιν A—M.] 


ye shall never stumble.—M. ] 


(German: For thus shall be richly eee you the entrance into the.... 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 1. Simon Peter.—The opening of the 
first Epistle has only Peter. It seems that he 
uniformly bore the name of Simon only while he 
continued to accompany Jesus till after His ascen- 
sion; at least Jesus always called him Simon, 
Matt. xvii. 25; Mark xiv. 37; Luke xxii. 31; 
John xxi. 15. 16.17. The disciples also appear 
to have called him Simon, Luke xxiv. 34; Acts 
xy. 14. Afterwards they began to distinguish 
him from others of the same name by the honour- 
able surname Peter, Acts x. 5.18. The Evan- 
gelists call him more frequently Peter than Simon 
Peter; in the Pauline Epistles Peter is already 
the constant form; in the Gospels the two names 
are sometimes used alternately, John xiii. 86. 37; 
ef. Matt. iv. 18; x. 2; xvi. 16; xvii. 25.—It is im- 
probable that the conjoining of both names de- 
notes on the part of Peter the design of describing 
merely his natural and his new birth. There is 
more probability in Besser’s suggestion, ‘that 
the full name, Simon Peter, has a kind of testa- 
mentary form,” for he was near his life’s end. 


[Simon, or rather Simeon, Συμεών, inv, ef. 


Acts. xv. 14, The Aramaic form of Simon seems 
to favour the view, that this Epistle was addressed 
to Jewish Christians. Alford remarks, that the 
occurrence of this form is at all events a testi- 
mony in favour of the independence of the second 
Epistle. It was not adapted to the first: which, 
considering that it refers to the first, is a note, 
Mh slight, on the side of its genuineness.— 

A Servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ. 
—The same designation is used by St. Paul, Rom. 
i. 1; Titus i. 1; and St. James also calls himself 
a servant of Christ, one of the highest titles of 
honour, ch. i. 1; ef. Gal. i. 10. The former de- 
notes his relation of dependence; the latter, the 
dignity of his office. 


To them that have obtained like pre- 
cious faith with us: τοῖς λαχοῦσι sc. χαίρειν 
λέγει. Aayxavw=1 obtain by lot, by fortune, by 
Divine appointment, or by inheritance, cf. Luke 
i. 9; John xix. 24; Acts i. 17. The word ex- 
cludes all personal agency and merit.—Faith 
may here be taken objectively or subjectively, 
either as a cycle of truths believed, or as a defi- 
nite disposition of faith; the former agrees better 
with λαγχάνω and ἰσότιμος, and accords with πα- 
ρούσῃ ἀληθείᾳ, vy. 12, ef. Jude 8. Every faith and 
every construction of the truths of faith are not 
of equal value; there areinadequate and adequate, 
light and weighty representations of the Divine 
truths. But Peter here assures his readers that 
the faith, which in the dispensation of God was 
communicated to them, is equal in value and 
weight to that confessed by him and the other 
Apostles, cf. Acts xi. 17; xv. 9.11. The con- 
sideration of these passages seems to convey the 
idea that Peter is here addressing Gentile Chris- 
tians. — ἡμῖν, elliptically for τῇ ἡμῶν πίστει, 
Winer, 6 ed., p. 645, equal in value to our faith. 
[Hornejus: ‘“Dicitur fides eque pretiosa, non quod 
omnium credentium xque magna sit, sed quod per fidem 
illam eadem mysteria et eadem beneficia divina nobis 
proponantur,’ The references to Acts are hardly 
necessary; whoever they were, Jewish or Gentile 
Christians, their faith, says Peter, is equally pre- 
cious in the sight of God with his (Peter's) faith 
and that of the other Apostles.—M]. 

In the righteousness of our God and 
Saviour Jesus Christ.—This clause also fa- 
vours the objective construction of faith. Its 
centre and foundation are in the righteousness 
of God. Gerlach and Dietlein maintain that 
‘‘our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’ are here 
intimately connected, so that Jesus is called God. 
But seeing that the Petrine doctrine calls Jesus 
Lord, but in no other place except this, God, the 
former is more correctly applied to the Father. 
But what is the righteousness of God and that of 
the Saviour? We must here distinguish two sub- 


CHAPTER I. 1-11. 


Il 


jects. So Huther, δικαιοσύνη derived by Aristotle 
from δίχα, διχάζειν, to divide in two equal parts, 
to appoint to each his own. δίκαιος, one who sus- 
tains a right relation to others, who is just what 


he ought to be. pris applied to the judge or 


king who protects and administers justice, hence 
frequently used of the judicial acts of God as evi- 
denced in the salvation and reward of the godly, 
and in the punishment of the ungodly. This is 


often expressed by the terms pis: Ms A 


which sometimes denote truth and goodness. 
Here it is clearly not to be taken, asin Rom i. 17, 
in the sense of righteousness which comes from 
God and is valid before Him, 7. e., imputed righ- 
teousness; this, to say nothing of its being an 
essentially Pauline idea, is impossible on account 
of the following καὶ σωτῆρος. It is rather to be 
taken as an attribute of God, as it occurs in Rom. 
iii. 25. 26, descriptive of the judicial activity of 
God. The manner how Peter understood its ma- 
nifestation in the centre of our faith, viz., in the 
work of redemption, is not further indicated in 
our passage. But we may doubtless infer from 
ch. ii. 1, where the term ‘“‘to buy” is used, that 
his conception is the same as in Rom. iii. 25, that 
Jesus satisfied the justice of God, which demands 
the death of the sinner, by paying a sufficient 
ransom for all mankind. This required Jesus to 
be perfectly sinlessand holy. This is the dcxaco- 
σύνη σωτῆρος; so that the word bears a double 
sense, applicable to the righteousness of God and 
to the holiness of Jesus. That our passage is 
closely connected with the doctrine of Paul, seems 
almost unmistakable, and is not surprising in 
consideration of the passage ch. iii. 15. Huther 
takes deacootyy—the conduct corresponding to 
His holiness, which makes no difference between 
the one party and the other; de Wette incor- 
rectly=grace and love. [Winer, p. 142, has 
fully shown that τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος I. X. may be 
grammatically rendered ‘of owr God and Saviour 
Jesus Christ”; Bp. Middleton, p. 595, also asserts 
that ‘‘this passage is plainly and unequivocally 
to be understood as an assumption that Jesus 
Christ is our God and Saviour.” The ostensible 
design of the Epistle to refute the errors of those 
who separated Jesus from Christ, and denied the 
Lord that bought them, and rejected the doctrine 
of His divinity, supports this construction. See 
more in Wordsworth.—M. 

Ver. 2 contains the salutation of blessing, as 1 
Pet. i. 1; but further specified by ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, 
a stronger expression than the simple yvéocc, and 
of frequent occurrence in this Epistle, vv. 3. 8; 
ch. ii. 20. Paul often uses it, especially in the 
Epistle to the Colossians, ch. i. 9. 10; ii. 25 iii. 
10; also Rom. i. 28: ili. 20; x. 38; Eph. i. 17; 
tv. 185 Phili 1 9: 1 Tima, 4. ὑπ 203s Π ΟΣ 1; 
Phil. 6; Heb. x. 26.—It deserves to be particu- 
larly noticed because of the tendency to false 
gnosis, which was then beginning to appear. 
The word denotes acknowledgment, a knowledge 
which enters into.an object and takes affection- 
ate cognizance thereof; which is not satisfied 
with a merely outward relation to it, but seeks 
to enter into and to lay hold of that object. The 
verb is also found in the Gospels; 6. g., Matt. vii. 
16; xi. 27; xiv. 35; Mk. ii. 8; Luke i. 4. Ca- 


| 


lov defines it correctly as ‘practical, confiding 
knowledge=—faith.”” He adds, that it contains a 
gentle caution against their forfeiting grace and 
peace by sins against their conscience or by apos- 
tasy. The gifts of God presuppose not only a 
vessel to receive them, but an advance on our 
part. ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, it is the medium and vehicle 
of the multiplication of grace. τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ ; 
Ἰησοῦ does not require the Article, because the 
Father and the Son are one in Essence. 


Ver. 3. Here begins the Epistle proper, which, 
as Roos observes, may be compared to a stream 
which is wide and deep at its very source. In 
this it resembles the first Epistle. Vv. 3. 4, show 
what God does for believers, vv. 5-8, what they 
are expected to do. Gerlach: ‘The beginning 
of the Epistle is peculiarly full of fire and life, 
and translates us forthwith into the whole pleni- 
tude of Gospel grace.” 


Forasmuch as His Divine power hath 
given us all things; ὡς---δεδωρημένης. Gro- 
tius connects ὡς with the preceding, and explains 
that he did not value that knowledge so highly 
for nothing, forasmuch as it is the means where- 
by the Divine Power communicates all things to 
us; but it is better to connect ὡς with Calov with 
what follows. ὡς 18 not pleonastic, but denotes 
here, as frequently elsewhere, a well founded 
assurance; so De Wette, Dietlein, Huther. One 
might therefore translate: ‘‘ Assured that the 
Divine Power has given us all things, strive,” 
cf. 1 Cor. iv. 18; Acts xxvii. 80; Winer, p. 689.— 
δεδωρημένης, from the Middle δωρέομαι, not as if 
the perf. passivt were used instead of the perf. ac- 
tit. Winer, p. 277. So LXX. Gen. xxx. 20. 
αὐτοῦ refers both to Θεοῦ and ᾿Ιησοῦ. 


His Divine Power.—The Holy Ghost is not 
any more referred to here than in Eph. i. 19, 
although the Holy Ghost is described as ‘‘ power 
from on high,” Lke. xxiv. 49; οἵ. Acts i. 5, and 
He is usually the medium whereby God bestows 
grace. Which are (necessary) for the (true 
spiritual) life, which is planted through regenera- 
tion, for the life emanating from God, and for 
the evidences of the same, for the exhibition of 
godliness. Gerlach: ‘‘The Divine Power has 
given us all things necessary for regeneration 
and holiness, so that the Christian has no ex- 
cuse.”’ Bengel: ‘‘ Look, it is not only by piety 
that we attain life, the Divine glory brings life, 
the Divine power godliness, to the one is opposed 
destruction, to the other lust (vy. 4.)” 


Through the knowledge of Him that 
called us.—Here, as in y. 2, believing know- 
ledge is the medium of the attainment of the Di- 
vine communications of life. 

That called us, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 9; i. 15; 2 Pet. 1. 
10. The calling of God is the temporal fulfilment 
of the PRE-temporal [eternal—M. 1 act of election. 
The end of the calling is not indicated here; 
where it is not mentioned, as in 1 Pet. ii. 21; 
iil. 9, we may supply it, as importing eternal 
salvation and glory, 1 Pet. 5.10; cf. 1 Thess. 
1 2 im νι: 119... 2eT im 5.9... ΗΘ. ix. 15: 

By His glory and virtue.—0o.d δόξης καὶ 
ἀρετῆς. [The reading ἰδίᾳ δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ given in 
Appar. Crit., which see, is the most authentic. 
idcoc—suus is peculiar to Peter ; cf. 11, 22; iii. 3. 
16.17; 1 Pet. iii. 1.5. Athanasius, Dialog. de 


12 


Trin. i. 164, cites this passage as from ‘ The Ca- 
tholic Epistles.” —M.] Peter, who often uses the 
word glory, connects it elsewhere with κρατός, 1 
Pet. iv. 11; v. 11, here with ἀρετῇ. So Paul 
also praises the glory of the grace of God, Eph. 
i. 6; cf. Acts vii. 2; Rom. i, 28; ii..7; v. 2; 
ix. 4; xv. 7; 1 Cor. ii. 8; 2 Cor. 1: 18 viii. 
28; Phil. i. 11; Col. i. 11. On glory see the 
note on 1 Pet. i. 7. δ ὧν shows that δόξα and ἀρετή 
must not be reduced to one idea and rendered 
‘‘glorious power.” Respect being had to the 
above mentioned connection, and to the deriva- 
tion of ἀρετῇ (from avfp or ἄρης, like virtus from 
vir), which denotes primarily manhood, strength, 
valour, we cannot, with Bengel, refer ἀρετὴ to 
the moral attributes of God, but rather adopt.the 
exposition of Roos, that ‘‘God calls us by means 
of a glorious, great, rich and wonderful grace, 
which is worthy of His Divine Name, and by a 
mighty energy, because His call is powerful and 
also a drawing, which renders our coming to 
Christ possible, Jno. vi. 44; cf. 1 Pet. ii. 9.”— 
δόξα ; connect with the brightness with which 
God shines in the hearts of those whom He 
wakens, 2 Cor. iv. 6. Others refer δόξα and 
ἀρετή to the manifestation of the glory and moral 
perfection of God in the Person of Christ. Jno. 
1.14; Acts ii. 22; x. 38. Huther refers δόξα to 
His Being, ἀρετῇ to His acts. 

Ver. 4. Through which He hath given 
unto us the greatest and (most) precious 
promises.—Through which, 7. e., His glory and 
Divine power.—érayyéAuara properly, promises, 
which, although they are gifts per se, are the 
more precious because their bestowal involves 
also the bestowal of part of the promised riches. 
Thus we read in Acts ii. 83, ‘“‘ having received 
from the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost,” 
t. e., the Holy Ghost who had been promised. 
Hence Gerhard understands it of the promised 
riches themselves, 1. 6., redemption and atone- 
ment, adoption, union with God, the gift of righ- 
teousness and eternal life. Only it should be re- 
membered that these are likewise the earnest of 
still greater riches to come.—ded&pyra, again 
Middle, to be joined with καλέσας. 

That by means of these ye might be- 
come partakers of the Divine nature.—It 
is incorrect to construe with Roos and a/.: ‘The 
sum-total of what is contained in the great and 
precious promises of God, is that we may become 
partakers of the Divine nature.” ἵνα rather in- 
timates that the reference is to the end contem- 
plated in those glorious attributes and promises 
of God.—d:a τούτων refers both to δόξα and ἀρετὴ 
and to érayyfAuara. [But it is doubtful whether 
there is such a double reference; τούτων seems 
to point to ἐπαγγέλματα as the nearest noun. See 
Winer, p. 170. ‘vais telic, and the end proposed 
in these promises is their becoming partakers of 
the Divine nature.—M. ] 

Partakers of the Divine nature; φύσις, the Being, 
the Essence proper, cf. Rom. xi. 24; Eph. ii. 3; 
Jas. iii. 7, from φύω, as it is with God from all 
eternity, and comprises all His perfections. 
‘“What is the Divine nature?’ asks Luther. 
«Eternal truth, righteousness, eternal life, peace, 
joy, delight, and whatsoever good may be named. 
Hence he, who becomes a partaker of the Divine 
nature, is wise, righteous and omnipotent against 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


the devil, sin and death.” Calvin aptly com- 
pares the incarnation of Christ. As His human 
nature partook of the Divine, so believers are to 
become partakers of the Divine nature.—The re- 
ference, consequently, is not only to a moral re- 
semblance, to an ideal communion, but toa veri- 
table communion of being, which begins here 
below in our regeneration, 1 Jno. i. 3, but will 
be consummated hereafter. Cf. Rom. viii. 29; 
Jno, xvii. 21. This involves the glorification of 
the body, Phil. iii. 21, seeing God and sharing 
in His glory, 1 Cor. xiii. 12, and increasing re- 
semblance to Him, 1 Jno. iii. 2. ‘* When He shall 
appear we shall resemble (ὅμοιοι) Him.” ‘ This 
does not mean that the partakers of the Divine 
nature shall be exactly like (7. e., equal to) God. 
God reserves to Himself His Person, although He 
shares with us His nature. As the sun reflects 
his image in a clear lake or a dew-drop and yet 
remains the sun, so also does God remain as He 
was and as He is, although He has made men 
partakers of His nature.” Zeller’s Biblisches Wor- 
terbuch. [Origen, in Levit. Hom. 4, cites this 
passage as from a genuine writing of Peter, also 
Athanasius, c. Arian. Orat. 2.1. 188. Wordsw. 

Having escaped from the corruption, 
etc.—aropvyérvtec, not in a preceptive sense, as 
Caloy takes it, ‘‘ only ye shall escape,” for it is 
immediately connected with the preceding clause 
and not with the following Imperative: it rather 
means after, on the supposition that, ye have 
escaped. The Aorist, which denotes an action 
merely as a past event (Winer, pp. 290. 291) for- 
bids the rendering, ‘‘if ye escape forthwith.” 
Bengel: ‘There is an antithesis between par- 
takers and escaping, and also between Divine na- 
ture and corruption in lust. This escapingdenotes 
not so much our duty as a Divine benefit which 
accompanies the communion with God.” 

τὴν ὠθοράν (ef. Rom. viii. 21; Gal. vi. 8; Col. 
ii, 22; 2 Pet. ii. 12. 19) not Active, but Passive, 
not only moral, but physical corruption. Here 
we meet again the antithesis between the perish- 
able and the imperishable which is deeply rooted 
in the Apostle’s soul. Cf. 1 Pet. i. 4. 7. 18. 23- 
25; 2 Pet. iii. 10, ete.—Corruption reigns in the 
world and penetrates it in allits parts; its source 
and strength lie in the anti-divine lust which 
excites the wrath of God and ruins human na- 
ture, in soul and body. Cf. Eph. iv. 22. Roos: 
««There lies a corruption in the lusts common to 
the world. The old man through lusts corrupts 
himself in error, so that he grows worse and 
worse. The carnal lusts war against the soul, 
which thereby is increasingly enfeebled and 
darkened. It grows in wickedness, becomes 
more like the devil, and inclines to hell. Through 
many of these lusts the naturally good condition 
of the body also is ruined.” [Calvin: “απο 
non in elementis quae nos circumstant, sed in corde 
nostro esse ostendit, quia illic regnant vitiosi et pravi 
affectus, quorum fontem vel radicem voce concupis- 
centiae notat. Ergo ita locatur in munda corruptio, 
ut scimus in nobis esse mundum.’’—M. } 

Ver. 5. But for this very reason—know- 
ledge.—xai αὐτὸ τοῦτο dé begins the apodosis. 
αὐτὸ τοῦτο used adverbially, ἐξ is just therefore— 
wherefore I exhort you, it is for this very reason, on 
this very account, see Winer, p. 155.—xai as God 


CHAP. I. 1-11. 


13 


does His part, so do ye yours. δὲ is added, be- 
cause the positive side of their escape is now 
made prominent. [τοῦτο δὲ om. παρεισενέγκαντες 
stands parallel to ὡς πάντα... δεδωρημένης, etc., 
and y. 4 is an explanatory relative clause to the 
words διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς, so Winer.—M. | 

All diligence.—Cf. vv. 10. 15; iii. 14. A 
very comprehensive term. Use with all earnest- 
ness the energies of faith which have been be- 
stowed upon you for your holiness.—Luther:— 
“Ye have a goodly heritage and a good field, take 
care that you suffer no thistles and weeds to grow 
in it.” --- παρεισενέγκαντες (ἅπαξ ey.) denotes 
bringing in something along with one, quietly 
and without ostentatious display.—émcyopyyeiv, a 
word peculiar to Paul, 2 Cor. ix. 10; Gal. iii. 5; 
Col. ii. 19, to furnish, supply. Generally the re- 
ference to the chorus is entirely ignored. The 
word is often used of expenses that are incurred, 
and denotes here that we must be prepared to in- 
cur expenses in order to furnish this garland of 
virtues. The furnishing on our part corresponds 
to the furnishing on God’s part, v.10. ‘The 
gifts of God are followed by our diligence, our 
diligence is followed by the entrance into the 
kingdom.” Dietlein gives the ungrammatical 
rendering: ‘leads in the dance.”’—év τῇ πίστει. 
Faith, which leads the chorus, identical with the 
practical knowledge of vv. 2. 8, is the root of 
those virtues, love, its crown, ends it. Augus- 
tine: ‘‘ Faith is the root and mother of all vir- 
tues.” It appears here as a gift of grace, Jno. 
vi. 29; Eph. ii. 8. 9.---ὠοῴβετῆν, manly, decided 
conduct before the three enemies of our salva- 
tion, and readiness to good works. It corres- 
ponds to the ἀρετὴ of God, v. 4, which energetic- 
ally repels all evil. De Wette and Huther are 
too general in rendering ‘‘moral fitness.” Of the 
seven fruits on the tree of faith this is the first 
and the best, cf. Phil. iv. 8. It must be coupled 
with γνῶσις, which is different from ἐπίγνωσις, 
of which it is the fruit, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 7; Phil. i. 
9; a wise demeanour with a ready perception of 
what is useful or harmful, of what is to be done 
and to be avoided, cf. Eccl. viii. 9. It preserves 
us from indiscreet zeal and exaggerations. 
ther :—“‘ Prudence is the eye of all virtues, with- 
out which virtue easily degenerates into faults.” 
Calov:—‘‘It leads and moderates all virtues, so 
that in the practice of it we err neither by doing 
too much nor too little, nor stray from the right 
goal.” 

Vv. 6. 7. And in knowledge—love.— 
ἐγκράτεια, abstinence from the lust of the world, 
self-control. ‘It abstains from the evil it knows 
to identify, and in Christian liberty steadily bri- 
dles the desires, 1 Pet. iv. 8; Gal. v. 22.” Rich- 
ter. ὑπομονῇ, endurance, perseverance under 
abuse, want, troubles, dangers and sufferings. 
“‘Self-government accustoms men to be hard to 
themselves, and thus to endure sufferings.” Ph. 
M. Hahn.—r7v εὐσέβειαν, the disposition in which 
the consideration of God controls the whole life, 
in which He is held in supreme honour, whereby 
His approval is sought, and the doing of which 
things constitutes its own happiness.—¢vAade/dia, 
1 Pet. 1.22; Rom. xii. 10; 1°Thess. iv. 9; Heb. 
xiii. 1; Gal. vi. 10.---τὴν ἀγάπην, love in general, 
universal kindness toward all men. Bengel:— 
‘“‘Kach of these several steps begets and facili- 


Lu-: 


tates the next; each next tempers and perfects 
the preceding.” —Gerlach:—‘The import of this 
scale of Christian graces may be still more ap- 
preciated by considering it in an inverted order, 
and by acquiring the conviction that each suc- 
cessive step necessarily presupposes the one which 
precedes it.” 

Ver. 8. For if these things are in you, 
etc.—irapyew, to lie under, to be taken for 
granted, to be truly subsisting, to be at one’s 
command, like a property. If these qualities 
have become your inward, property, cf. Acts iil. 
θ.--πλεονάζοντα, and if by daily practice they 
multiply, Rom. v. 20; vi. 1; 2 Thess. i. 8, they 
will not suffer you to appear as unworkful [ἀργός 
—depyoc.—M. ] and unfruitful; they will exhibit 
themselves in all manner of good works, and im- 
pel you to an ever-growing, profound, compre- 
hensive and thorough knowledge of Jesus Christ. 
Thus there is an admirable fitness, in that the 
knowledge of Christ, which consists of different 
gradations, is first described as the source and 
afterwards as the fruit of those virtues. [Christ 
is the Author and Finisher of our faith.—M. ] 

Ver. 9. For he to whom these things— 
not seeing afar off.—Supply before yap the 


thought, ‘strive so much the more earnestly after 


these things, for—otherwise you go in the direc- 
tion of relapse and blindness.’ Huther:—‘‘A 
negative illustrative explanation of the preceding 
verse. He is blind while he thinks after the 
manner of those false teachers, that he has light; 
he knows neither himself, nor God, nor Christ; 
he is in the darkness, 1 Jno. ii. 9. 11; Rev. iii. 
17; Prov iv. 19." -- μυωπάζων from μύωψ, one who 
is near-sighted and obliged partly to shut his 
eyes in order to see objects at a distance. Such 
an one accordingly is blind both in regard of the 
present and of the future; he intentionally shuts 
the eyes of his spirit against the light, wherever 
it is disagreeable to him. Grotius, falsely :— 
“He is blind, or if not wholly blind, short- 
sighted.” Huther:—‘‘He only sees that which 
is near (earthly things), not that which is dis- 
tant (heavenly things).” [Fronmiiller’s view is 
the reproduction of that of Suidas: ‘‘/tague 
τυφλὸς μυωπάζων is dicitur qui ideo cecus est, quia: 
sponte claudit oculos, ut ne videat, aut qui videre se 
dissimulat, quod vel invitus cernit.”’—M. | 

Having placed in forgetfulness the pu- 
rification of his former sins.—This describes 
the way in which that getting blind is brought 
about. Bengel notes the fitness of the term 
λήθην λαβὼν as expressive of that which man wil- 
lingly suffers, that which he wishes for, cf. Rom. 
y. 19. An example is found in the wicked ser- 
vant, Matt. xviii. 28.—rovd καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαε 
αὐτοῦ duapti@v.—Winer inclines to the interpret- 
ation, ‘purification of sins—putting away of 
sins, removal of sins,” p. 200. But one can 
hardly say: καθαρίζονται ἁμαρτίαι. Sins are pu- 
rified—removed. Translate, rather, ‘‘the puri- 
fication of their sins, ¢. 6., of their guilt, which 
takes place in justification,” cf. Ps. li. 4; Ex. 
xxix. 86. 87; Heb. i. 3; ix. 22. 28; 1 Jno. tebe 
It emanates from the blood of Christ by means 
of faith, Rom. iii. 24. 25. [Oecumenius :— ‘Kat 
yap καὶ οὗτος ἐπιγνοὺς ἑαυτὸν διὰ τὸ καθαρθῆναι τῷ 
ἁγίῳ βαπτίσματι, ὅτι πλήθους ἁμαρτιῶν ἐξεπλίθη, 
δέον εἰδέναι bre καθαρθεὶς καὶ ἁγιότητα ἔλαβε, νήφειν 


14 


iva διαπαντὸς τηρῇ τὸν ἁγιασμόν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς 
ὄψεται τὸν κύριον, ὁ δὲ ἐπελάθετο." ---Μ. 

Ver. 10. Wherefore the rather, etc.— 
orovdacate eGaiav.—Lachmann’s reading (see 
Appar. Crit.) is only in apparent conflict with 
Paul, who also insists upon a faith evidenced" by 
love and good works. ‘Peter desires that our 
calling and election should be also secure with 
us and not only with God, and that we should 
make it thus secure by. good works.”” Luther.— 
Our calling becomes secure, sure and certain, if 
it leads to the issue which is desired.—Breth- 
ren.—This address is not found in the first Epis- 
tle; but we have its equivalent: Beloved, ch. ii. 
_ 11. [Bengel: Jn priore epistola nunquam, in al- 
tera semel hanc appellationem Petrus adhibet: ex quo 
gravitas hujus loci apparet.—M. ] 

Your calling and election sure.— The 
calling is placed first with reference to ourselves, 
who become first conscious of our calling, and 
afterwards of our election. ἐκλογή denotes not 
the worthiness and distinction conditioned by our 
our own doings, nor our entering here in time into 
communion with God, but as usual, the eternal 
purpose of God, cf. 1 Pet. i. 1; ii. 4.6.9; Acts 
ix os, ROMs 1x.) 1. x. δι 1. 26: 1 te hess. 1.44 
Those who consider themselves elect are still lia- 
ble to stumble and fall. Huther applies it to 
the separation of the called from the world and 
to their translation into the kingdom of God, in 
which their calling is instrumental.—Augustine: 
—‘‘Even for perseverance in obedience you must 
hope in the Father of Light, and implore Him in 
daily prayers; but in doing so you must have the 
assurance that you are not excluded from the 
election of His people, because it is God Himself 
who enables you to do so.” 

For if ye do these things, if ye exhibit 
these qualities (v. 5, etc.), ye shall never 
stumble.—ov μὴ πταίσητε.---πταίειν, to strike the 
foot against a stone, to stumble, to fail, to come 
to grief. The figure is taken here, as in 1 Cor. 
ix. 24, from those who, at the games, run within 
the course. Tossan:—‘‘James (iii. 2) says, in- 
deed, that we all fail or stumble in various ways; 
but Peter here refers to a stumbling which de- 
notes a man’s keeping down, or his falling wholly 
away from the grace of God, or forfeiting it,” 
ef. Heb. xii. 13.—The Intensive ov μή with the 
Conj. Aor. is used when something is to happen 
at an indefinite period, or very rapidly, see Wi- 
ner, p. 528. 

For thus shall be richly furnished to 
you, ete.—Richly corresponds to πλεονάζειν, v. 
8, and is the antithesis to 1 Pet. iy. 18, ‘that ye 
may enter not as from shipwreck or a fire, but 
as it were in triumph.’ Bengel.—‘ But those who 
enter otherwise (although we ought not to des- 
pair of the weak) will not pass on thus joyously, 
the door will not be open as wide for them, but 
it will be narrow and hard to them, so that they 
struggle and would rather be weak all their life 
than die once.” Luther.—Huther understands 
the rich fulness of future felicity.—éxcyopyynhn- 
σεται corresponds to vy. 5. If ye richly con- 
tribute, furnish forth those virtues, God also will 
furnish you a richly opened entrance into His 
kingdom. Roos thinks that this entrance begins 
already here upon earth. ‘The state of grace 
builded upon the foundation of the calling and 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


election of God becomes more and more immoy- 
able, so that the danger of losing it is continually 
lessening. One enters also further and further 
into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Sa- 
viour Jesus Christ, so that one receives more and 
more richly the Spirit who rules all things there- 
in, and through this Spirit one obtains more and 
more fully the knowledge of the Father and the 
Son and the capacity of acting in all cases more 
and more in conformity to the laws which are 
valid in that. kingdom.”—(aovAciay is connected 
with the synoptical sayings of Christ, and is not 
found in the first Epistle, which describes eternal 
life by the figure of an inheritance, 1 Pet. i. 4; 
1τ| ἢ: 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. It is impossible to enter into the stream of 
truth, power and Apostolical majesty which we 
encounter at the opening of this Epistle without 
gaining the firm conviction that here speaks not 
an unknown personage of the second century, 
who falsely arrogates to himself the title of an 
Apostle and the name of the Prince of the Apos- 
tles, but that it is he himself, as he testifies in the 
Introduction to the Epistle. 

2. As in Paul, so here, the atonement whereby 
the justice of God was satisfied, and justification 
by faith in the free grace of God in Christ, are 
represented as the centre of the Christian faith. 

3. An essential moment of faith is knowledge, 
to which peculiar prominence is given in the sec- 
ond Epistle of Peter, doubtless, among other 
reasons, because the Apostle had to deal with an 
intellectual tendency which attached a very great 
value to knowledge, although it was only one- 
sided and theoretical. He, therefore, vindicates 
the claims of yital, practical knowledge, ch. i. 2. 
3. 5. 6.8; ii. 20; iii. 18; the beginning, progress 
and completion of which should be duly distin- 
guished from one another, ch. i. 3. 8. ‘* He op- 
poses to the falsely celebrated knowledge of those 
false teachers the true knowledge.”’ Besser. Cf. 
Rey. ii. 24; 1 Jno. ii. 23; Jno. xvii. 3. 

4, The wakening of a sinner from spiritual 
death and the communication of a new life to 
him require on the part of God the same putting 
forth of power as the resurrection of Christ from 
the dead, Eph. i. 19. 20. Hence every thing is 
here referred back to the Divine Power. ‘In 
conversion, justification, and the first bestowal 
of grace, grace alone works for and in us sinners. 
But afterwards we are bound and able to codper- 
ate, not in our own strength, but in the strength 
of God by grace.” Richter. Our confessions 
teach rightly: ‘‘That as those who are physic- 
ally dead cannot of themselves and of their own 
strength reanimate their dead bodies and restore 
them to life, so also those who are dead in sins 
cannot of their own strength achieve their spir- 
itual and heavenly righteousness and spiritual 
life, unless the Son of God deliver them from the 
death of sins and quicken them,” 2 Cor. iii. 5; 1 
Cor. ii. 14; Jno. xv. 5; Phil. ii. 18; Vormula 
Concordiz. Miiller, p. 590.—Confess. Aug., Art. 
Los 

5. How lofty the vocation of us poor, sinful 
men! The kingdom of God, communion with 


CHAPTER I. 1-11. 


God, His glory and actually participation in His 
Nature are all held out to us. While pantheism 
dreams of a God, who as the universal Spirit of 
the world is ever engaged in an incessant alter- 
nation of ebb and flow, now distributing and 
again gathering Himself, now scattering in innu- 
merable drops and again flowing back into an 
ocean, Holy Scripture makes us acquainted with 
the living, personal God, eternally exalted above 
His creatures, and yet so condescending to those 
who love Him as to make them partakers of His 
Being. The Triune God wills to dwell in His 
elect, to make them one spirit with Him, and yet 
to make them personally different from Him. 

6. ‘‘Corruptible and perishable lust often com- 
mends itself as a thing permitted, and wicked 
men often turn and twist the commandments of 
God until they think that they have found a 
warrant for the gratification of that lust; be- 
cause then this perverted dogma of Christian 
liberty constitutes the whole of their Gospel, 
which they are minded and ready to practise.” 
Roos. 

7. Doubts of one’s calling and election to eter- 
nal life are best overcome by giving all diligence 
in furnishing those yirtues (v. 5), and warring 
against the opposite sins. ‘Although all the 
rest (v. 5, ete.,) flows from faith in the grace of 
God in Christ, it attains only gradually the con- 
trol of man’s doing and not-doing through proof.” 
Gerlach. <‘‘On the seven-fold tree of faith one 
part grows out of the other; the first contains 
the germ of the second, the second enables the 
third to come to a healthy growth, and all of 
them together are consummated in love.’’ Besser. 
—Good works are indissolubly united to the true 
knowledge of Jesus Christ, so that knowledge 
also must be denied to the idle and unfruitful. 

8. Those who forget the principal article of 
the forgiveness of sins through the blood of Je- 
sus, lack the most efficient incentive to holiness, 
the Spirit, who teaches men to abhor sin as the 
greatest evil, takes flight, and relapse inevitably 
ensues. 

9. The election of believers is forever object- 
ively secure; but, they must become more and 
more firmly established in it, so that nothing 
shall be able to upset their being sealed with the 
Holy Spirit. 

10. ‘‘The seven-fold furnishing forth of vir- 
tue on the part of believers will encounter in the 
eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ, the riches of 
which are unfathomable, a seventy times seven- 
fold furnishing forth of glory. As on the arrival 
of a welcome guest with numerous attendants, 
we throw open the folding door of the house, so 
likewise a rich entrance into the hall of heaven 
awaits those who arrive there with the retinue 
of honest works of faith, Rey. xiv. 13.” Besser. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The highly-important knowledge that Jesus is 
my Lord.—The fountain of all godliness flows in 
the living knowledge of Christ.—Participation in 
the Divine Nature the highest aim of Chris- 
tianity.—Vnr. 7. Glorious fruits on the tree of 
faith.—The gifts of God and the fidelity of man 
must go hand in hand.—The cycle-life of Chris- 


15 


tianity which begins and ends with the knowledge 
of Jesus.—The straight way to the heavenly 
Zion.—The great blindness of those who forget 
the purification from their former sins. 
Srarke:—The Apostles have no privileges over 
other believers, either in salvation or the appoint- 
ment of it, but they are all alike loved by God in 
Christ, and regarded, as it were, as one, Rom. 
ili. 29, 30; Gal. iii. 28; Eph. iv. 5.—The omnipo- 
tence and might of God is as evident in the king- 
dom of grace as in the work of creation and the 
kingdom ofnature. The same power wakens, en- 
lightens, quickens, cleanses, sanctifies, strength- 
ens, confirms, and keeps the sinner unto salva- 
tion.—Nobody can be right in complaining of his 
inability to do good; is it not given to him of 
God? Piety is not impossible in the power of 
God. Use it with all diligence and earnestness, 
Phil. iv. 13.—To receive in faith according to the 
Gospel, and to give in love according to the law, 
must ever go together in the Christian life, so 
that receiving may truly promote giving, and the 
giving truly evidence the receiving.—False con- 
ceit, to hanker after sinful desires, and yet to 
imagine that one is the child of God! The two 
cannot exist together. If you desire the latter, 
you must let go the former, Eph. v. 1.—The re- 
generate must faithfully use all the powers of grace 
they have received, and be very diligent in good 
works, and thereby prove their new birth, Titus 
ii. 14.—The golden chain of virtue is man’s most 
becoming ornament; let no one sever its links; 
who wants one, shall have them all, Jas. ii. 10.— 
Although godliness begins at once with faith, it 
does not truly evidence itself in its proofs until 
it endures; then it is not confined to good motions 
and resolutions, but the practice of good becomes 
a continual and blessed habit, Titus iii. 14.— 
How very different is genuine Christian love from 
merely natural love! Who knows this truly but 
those who are born of God?—The more a believer 
grows in holiness, the more vanish the obstacles 
to true enlightenment, and the clearer grows his 
knowledge of spiritual and heavenly things, Rom. 
xii. 2.—Those who have received gifts from God 
and do not use them faithfully, are worse off than 
if they had received nothing at all, for they only 
increase their condemnation, Luke xii. 47, 48.— 
Godliness does not merit eternal life, but it be- 
longs to the order of salvation.—Shameful deceit, 
if thou leadest a godless life, and yet fanciest to 
be saved at last. Art thou sure that thou wilt 
be converted on thy dying bed? Depend not on 
the case of the dying thief; it may happen to one, 
but the most are lost, Sir. xvili. 22.—To live a 
truly godly life belongs to a happy, as well as to 
a joyful death. For although a joyful readiness 
to die is purely of God’s grace, it can only happen 
to those who, because of an unblemishable life, 
have a good conscience, Prov. xiv. 32. 
Lisco:—The heavenly possessions of the Chris- 
tian.—The communion of faith of Christians: 1. 
Its foundation; 2. Its effect.—The most precious 
jewel of the members of the Kingdom.—The final 
aim of the members of the Kingdom. 
Bex:—Of true enlightenment.—How faith 
evolves a whole garland of virtues. 
Grrok:—The Divine garden of a Christian 
heart; 1. With its heavenly nurture; 2. Noble 
plants; 3. Its glorious prospects. 


16 


W. Horacxer:—The most necessary and im- 
portant prayers. 

Scurerrer:—Man glorified into a Christian. 

H. Rrecer:—If God sends rain and fruitful 
seasons from heaven, the husbandman also does 
not fail in diligence, and thus the expected har- 
vest is attained. So, likewise, if God accords to 
us in various ways His Divine power, and man 
gives all diligence, that which is proposed in the 
heavenly calling is also attained.—The diligence 
we use, impels us more and more to the knowledge 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, to make a good use of 
all the treasures it contains on all occasions, and 
to overcome thereby remaining obstacles.—There 
is no want of. occasions to stumble. Unless the 
heart increasingly enters into purity, and the eye 
into simplicity, we shall stop here and there to our 
hurt, take a wrong view of things, make not the 
proper use of the power contained in our hea- 
venly calling against those things, and this occa- 
sions stumbling, inward uncertainty, entangle- 
ments in lust and complaisance, outward stumb- 
ling and laying hold of something which weakens 
the hope of our calling. 

[Ver. 1. The Divinity of Christ the beginning 
and end of this Epistle, ef. ch. iii. 18. 

Verses 5-8. Three figures suggested by the 
Apostle’s language: 

1. The chain or garland of Christian virtues. 

2. Faith, the fowndation of the Christian life, 
has been laid by God; on that foundation let 
Christians rear the superstructure, taking care 
that each succeeding virtue rests firmly in and on 
the one preceding it. 

3. The tree of the Christian life bearing seven- 
fold fruit, of which the last kind, charity, is the 
most precious and perfect.—M. ] 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


[Ver. 9. Ungodliness the cause of spiritual 
blindness; godliness opens and perfects spiritual 
vision. (See Wordsworth). 


Ver. 11. “According to our different degrees of 
improvement of the grace of God here, will be 
our different degrees of participation in His ever- 
lasting glory hereafter.”—Bp. Bull. 

The Christian’s triumphal entry into the ever- 
lasting Kingdom of our Lord and Sawviour Jesus 
Christ. 

The things, not seen, are ETERNAL. Life there 
is everlasting, Luke x. 25; the inheritance is ever- 
lasting, Heb. ix. 15; the Aouse and the tabernacles 
are everlasting, 2 Cor. vy. 1; Luke xvi. 9; the 
glory is everlasting, 2 Tim. ii, 10; salvation is 
everlasting, Heb. v. 2; and so is the kingdom of 
the King eternal, 1 Tim. 1. 17.—M.] 


[Sermons on this Section: 

Ver. 1. Stmzon, C.: Hvery thing needful pro- 
vided for us. Works, XX., 286. ᾿ 

Verses 5-7. BeveripaEe: The Chain of Chris- 
tian graces. Works, VI., 274. 

Lenrant: Les engagements de la foi. Sermons, I. 

Warsurton: The edification of Gospel righteous- 
ness. Confirmation. Works, IX., 163. 

Ver. 7. ZOLLIKOFFER: Whether or not Chris- 
tianity be favourable to patriotism? Sermons on 
the Evils of the World, II., 248. 

Ver. 10. Br. Hatu: Good security; or, the 
Christian’s assurance of heaven. Works, V., 570. 

Ver. 11. Be. Buu: The different degrees of bliss 
in heaven answer to the different degrees of grace here. 
Works, I., 168. 

Jay, W.: Happiness in death. 
411.—M. ] 


Works, IX., 


CHAPTER 1. 12-21. 


ANALYsIS:—The Apostle enforces his exhortation to holiness by the consideration of the expected nearness of his depart 
ure, confirming the certainty of the doctrine in which his readers had been instructed, a, by the eye-witness of him 


self and all the Apostles; ὃ, by the word of prophecy. 


12 


Wherefore I will not be negligent! to put you always in remembrance of these 


13 things, though? ye know them,’ and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think 
it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remem- 
14 brance;* Knowing that shortly ® I must put off iis my tabernacle, even as our Lord 


15 Jesus Christ hath showed me. 


16 


Moreover I will endeavour ® that ye may be able after 
my decease to have these things always in remembrance. For we have not followed 


cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming’ of our 


17 


Lord Jesus Christ, but were® eye-witnesses of his majesty. 


For he received from God ® 


the Father honour and glory, when there came” such ἃ yoice to him from the excel- 


18 
19 


lent" glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice 
which came from heaven” we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 


We 


have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as 
unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise 


20 


21 interpretation. 


in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private 
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy ἢ 


men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 


CHAPTER I. 12-21. 


17 


.. τ .͵ι..:.-.ἅ .Χ.-..-....--αςοσ-....-ο:.--ν-.-- τ Ἐο---ς-»-α--ἰ»ἧ»Ἐ--ς..----Ἐ-Ἐ -ς-α ς-ς--.--’-ο-ς:-ς-ς-“..-- -.- - -τ ς---Ἐ--Ἐ-ς-ς-. 


[3 German “it.”—M.]} 


διὸ μελλ. ἀεὶ 


always to remind you of these things, although ye know it, and are established in the 


that after my departure ye may always be able to have these things in remembrance. . . 


Translate: .... tabernacle is swift. ... - -- 
Verse 15. [ὅ σπου δά ζω, Cod. Sin.; minusc.—M.] 
[German:.... 
Translate: . . . . to call these things to mind.—M.] 


Verse 16. [7 παρουσίαν, German “ Erscheinung,” appearing.—M. } 
8 So German; literally with Passive force “ having been made or admitted eye-witnesses. The last prefer- 


able on account of the faint allusion to initiated admittance to the Eleusinian mysteries.” 


getical and Critical.—M.] 
[Translate: “For we had not... 


. when we made known . . 


See Exe- 


. . but had been... Lillie. On the use of 


the Aorist for the Pluperfect see Buttmann, ἢ 137. 3.6; Winer, ὁ 41. 5.—M.] 
Verse 17.[2 rapa TOD Θεοῦ Cod. Sin. C. minusc.—M.] 
1° So German; more correctly Peile and Alford, “ When a voice was borne to Him of such a kind,” viz., as 


is stated in what follows.—M.] 


ΠΙ ὑπὸ τῆς pey. δόξης. “by the sublime glory.”—M.] 


Verse 18. [12 ἐκ τοῦ ovp. Cod. Sin. A.—M.] 


[German: And this voice we heard coming from heaven, when ;.. . 


Translate: And this voice we heard borne from heaven, when... . 


Verse 19. Π8 ἡ ἡμέρα Cod. Sin. minusc.—M.] 


(German: And we have the prophetic word as a moresure one. - - 


—M.] 
. until the day shall have dawned, and 


the morning star shall have arisen in your hearts. 


Translate: And we have the prophetic word more sure. ....- 


etc.—M. 
‘Verse 20, 
tation.—M.] 
Verse 21. [14 Rec. οἱ ἅγιοι; ἅγιοι τοῦ A. Cod. Sin. 


as untoalamp..... until the day dawn, 


] 
[German: Knowing this first of all, that all prophecy of the Scripture is not matter of its own interpre- 


(ἀπὸ Θεοῦ without ot ἅγιοι) B. Tisch., Alf.—M.] 


[German: For no prophecy was at any time brought forth out of the will of man, but holy men of God 
spake, being borne along by the Holy Ghost. 
Translate: For prophecy was never brought by the will of man, but men spake from God, borne along by 


the Holy Ghost.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 12. Wherefore.—The ‘connection is as 
follows: In order that this glorious consumma- 
tion [of participation in the blessings and glories 
of Christ’s Kingdom, Alf.—M.] may be yours, I 
will not fail to exhort you to the zealous cultiva- 
tion of holiness, more particularly, because my 
departure is close at hand. Here we have the 
tendency of the whole Epistle. The Apostle’s 
aim is neither dogmatical instruction nor the re- 
futation of false teachers, but the strengthening 
and encouragement in the practice of good, the 
growth of a virtuous disposition and of a virtuous 
life on the part of those to whom he writes. He 
mentions first the vital knowledge of God and 
Christ as the chief means to that desirable end. 

I will not be negligent, etc.—ovk ἀμελήσω. 
[See Appar. Crit.—M.] His anxious care for 
their encouragement and confirmation is made 
more intense by ἀεί. Bengel:—‘‘I will always 
think of the one thing, that it is my duty to stir 
you up (admonish you).”—This was doubly ne- 
cessary, because of the danger of their being se- 
duced by false prophets, ch. ii. 1. 2, Luther:— 
‘¢The Christian ministry is of two kinds, as says 
St. Paulin Rom. xii. 7. 8. Teaching is laying 
the foundation of faith, and preaching it to those 
who are ignorant of it. Exhorting, or, as St. 
Peter says, reminding, is preaching to those who 
know and have heard (the Gospel), admonishing 
and stirring them up to recollect what they know, 
to continue and increase therein.” --ὑπομιμνήσκειν, 
ef. Jno. xiv. 26; 2 Tim. ii. 14; Tit/iii. 1; 3 Jno. 
10; Juded5. Paul uses the term ἐπαναμιμνήσκειν, 
Rom. xy. 15 


Although ye know them and have been 
established.—e«idérac¢ sc. ταῦτα.---ἐστηριγμένους:; 
στηρίζω, to set fast, establish. The truth was 
preached to you, 1 Pet. i. 12, confirmed by me, 
ch. v. 12, and you are fully convinced of it.— 
ἐν Th παρούσῃ, the truth has been brought near to 
you, yea it is present in your hearts. Similarly, 
Paul in Rom. x. 8. 6, ‘*The word is nigh thee, 
even in thy mouth and in thy heart.” ([Calvin: 
ἐς Vos quidem, inquit, probe tenetis queenam sit evan- 
geliz veritas, neque vos quasi fluctuantes confirmo, 
sed in re tanta monitiones nunquam sunt supervacue, 
quare nunquam molestate esse debent. Simili excu- 
satione utitur Paulus ad Rom. xv. 14.”—M.] 

Ver. 13. But I deem it right—reminding. 
—d0dé is often used by way of explanation. yap 
might have been used, but on account of the pre- 
ceding εἰδότας and ἐστηριγμένους we have an ad- 
versative conjunction. Winer, p. 474, 475.— 
σκήνωμα like σκηνή, στῆνος, tent, tabernacle. Thus 
the Doric poets and Pythagorean philosophers 
call the body the σκῆνος of the soul. Plato calls 
σῶμα the σῆμα of the soul, its prison, or grave. 
Paul makes use of the phrase, ‘‘earthly house 
of tabernacle,” 2 Cor. v. 1, with reference to the 
metaphor in Is. xxxviii. 12 and Wisd. ix. 15. 
Bengel: —‘‘It denotes the immortality of the 
soul, the brevity of its stay in this mortal body, 
and the facility of its departure in faith.” We 
may add that it also describes Christians as 
strangers and warriors, who use tents or huts in- 
stead of houses.—dzeye(pevv. Intensive form of 
ἐγείρειν, thoroughly to arouse from sleep and 
sleepiness through every impediment. 

Ver. 14. Knowing that—hath declared 
me.—Our Lord had announced to St. Peter the 
manner of his death, death upon the cross when 


18 


he should have grown old, Jno. xxi. 18. 19. Old 
age had now set in, but he seems to have re- 
ceived another particular revelation respecting 
the nearness and suddenness of his death; this 
may also have been the case with St. Paul, 2 
Tim. iv. 6. Grotius observes that similar revel- 
ations were made to Cyprian and Chrysostom.— 
ταχινῆ, suddenly and quickly, ἐν τάχει, as in Luke 
xviii. 8; Rev. i. 1. [Vulgate:—*‘ Certus quod ve- 
lox est depositio tabernaculi mei.” Bengel:—‘ Re- 
pentina est. Presens, qui diu xgrotant, possunt al- 
tos adhuc pascere. Crux id Petro non erat permis- 
sura. Ideo prius agit, quod agendum est.””—M. |— 
ἀπόθεσις seems to apply to the figure of a gar- 
ment, but suits also that of a tent, because this 
is laid aside after having served its purpose. In 
the following verse, the Apostle calls death an 
exodus (a going out), just as our Lord spoke of 
it as a going to the Father, Jno. xiv. 2, etc. A 
proof of the calmness with which the Master and 
the disciple contemplated the violent and painful 
death of the cross. [ἔξοδος in connection with 
σκήνωμα seems to be associated with the history of 
the Transfiguration, cf. Lke. ix. 31. 88, and con- 
tain incidental internal evidence of the genuine- 
ness of the Epistle, as such an association would 
hardly have occurred to any but an eye-witness 
of that memorable event.—M. ] : 

Ver. 15. Moreover, I will endeavour, etc. 
—or7ovddow for the usual σπουδάσομαι, see Winer, 
p. 101. I will take pains, that ye may have, etc., 
similar to the Latin studeo with Jnfin.—éxdorore, 
every time, on every occasion of necessity or 
emergency. — ἔχεν μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι ἔχω with 
Infin., as in the Classics, to be able to exercise the 
memory. As to the subject matter, it may relate 
to the present Epistle; but the conjecture of 
Richter ‘that the Apostle here holds out to them 
the hope of a fixed, written Gospel, the Gospel 
according to Mark being considered Peter’s Gos- 
pel,’ may not be improbable. Cf. Lange on 
Mark, p. 6, ete. On this supposition only the 
true import of this verse is realized, for other- 
wise it would seem to be rather pleonastic. So 
Micheelis, Pott, and al. De Wette thinks that 
Peter here holds out the promise of other Epis- 
tles, but v. 14 renders this conjecture improbable. 
---μνήμην roveicba:.—Romish interpreters discover 
here falsely an intimation of Peter’s intercession 
in heaven, but such an interpretation is even 
grammatically impossible. [This is not all; the 
Papists not only twist this passage into the in- 
tercession of saints, but use it in support of their 
doctrine of the invocation of saints. As a sam- 
ple of such perversion of Holy Writ take the in- 
terpretation of Corn.-a Lap.: “ἔχειν, habere sci- 
licet in mente et memoria mea ut crebro vestri sim me- 
mor apud Deum, cumque pro vobis orem, ut horum 
monitorum meorum memoriam vobis refricet. . . Hinc 
patet S. Petrum et Sanctos vita functos curare res 
mortalium, ideoque esse invocandos.” See the ju- 
dicious note of Alford.—M. ] 

Ver. 16. For we did not follow cunning- 
ly-devised fables, ete.—y ilo, myths, pe τὰ 
fictions, according to the exposition of the an- 
cients: lying stories dressed up in the garb of 
truth, [Pott :—*‘*fabule ad decipiendos hominum 
animos artificiose excogitate atque exornate.’’—M. 
—09iCw—to devise cunningly, invent artificially. 
Oecumenius mentions the fictions of the Valen- 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


tinians, which belong, however, to the second 
century. Calov:—‘‘ They were perhaps Jewish 
and heathen fables, such as are found in Hesiod 
and Ovid, taken up by those false teachers,” cf. 
ch. ii. 8.---ἐξακολουθήσαντες, to follow up, pursue 
with great care, ch. ii. 2. 15. [Bengel:—rd ἐξ 
errorem notat. Talis error in hac re nullus.—M. | 

When we made known to you.—Where? 
Partly orally, partly in the first Epistle, cf. ch. 
1 71. 18: 44S 21s ἀπ 18; ΛΟ ΟΣ ἀπο ΤΣ le. jhe 
reference to St. Mark’s Gospel is here out of the 
question. [But why any more here than inv. 15? 
Such a reference is far from improbable.—M. ] 

The power and appearing refer to the 
chief epochs of His life, as indicated in ch. iii. 
18, ete. Not by hendiadys—the power visible at 
His appearing, but two different though closely 
connected ideas. δύναμις embraces the riches of 
His whole life and salvation, the whole treasure 
of the Divine power centred in Him, His won- 
derful works, His power over the hearts of men, 
His power as Teacher and Redeemer, His resur- 
rection in power after His crucifixion in weak- 
ness, 2 Cor. xiii. 4, His descent to the realms of 
death, His ascension and His supreme dominion. 
—rapovoia, the presence, appearing, coming. It 
is used of Christ coming to judgment, Matt. 
xxiv. 8. 27. 87. 89; 1 Cor. xv. 28; 1 Thess. ii. 
19; iii. 18; v. 28; iv. 15; 2 Thess. ii, 1. 8; Jas. 
v. 7; 2 Pet. iii. 4. 12; 1 Jno. ii. 28. In this 
sense it might be taken here (so Gerhard, Hu- 
ther, de Wette); but seeing that παρουσία is used 
of the present in 1 Cor. 16. 17; 2 Cor. vii. 6. 7; 
x. 10; Phil. i. 26; ii. 26, that the present and 
the future interpenetrate each other in the pre- 
vious passages, that, moreover, the sequel refers 
to the past, it is perhaps best to adopt the expo- 
sition of Hahn, who blends the two: ‘‘His man- 
ifestation in the flesh accompanied by miraculous 
power, and His expected future appearing in 
glory.” We have here also an antithesis to the 
economy of the Old Testament, under which 
salvation and the Author of salvation were only 
promised, but had not yet appeared in reality, 1 
Pet. i. 11; 2. Pet. i. 19. Calov:—‘‘The Epistle 
is directed against those who denied the power 
and the first advent of Christ.” 

But were eye-witnesses of His majesty. 
--ἐπόπται, sometimes used of those who were 
admitted to the third and highest degree of initi- 
ation in the Eleusinian mysteries; the verb is 
also used in this sense. Peter, to whom the 
word is peculiar, 1 Pet. ii. 12; 111, 2, does not 
advert to its technical sense, but uses it in the 
sense of careful and close inspection and obser- 
vation. Huther says that reference is made to 
the circumstance that the μεγαλειότης of Christ 
has a mystery concealed from the others.—yeya- 
Aevbrnc—=might and greatness, majesty, used of 
the mighty power of God, and exhibited in the 
miracles of Christ, Lke. ix. 43; of the admired 
greatness and splendour of Diana, Acts xix. 27. 
Similarly μεγαλωσύνη, Heb. i. 3; viii. 1. 

Ver. 17. For He received from God the 
Father honour and glory.—Aafiv γάρ. An 
anacoluthon, to which ἐτύγχανε may be supplied. 
The construction is interrupted by the parenthe- 
sis. The sentence, “Ἢ was declared to be the 
Father’s beloved Son.”’ Winer, 868, 869. [Bat 
this construction, although possible, is not that 


CHAP. I. 12-21. 


19 


recommended by Winer, who gives Fronmiiller’s 
in a note, but says in the text: ‘‘The structure 
is interrupted by the parenthetical clause φωνῆς 
---εὐδόκησα ; and the Apostle continues in vy. 18 
with καὶ ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν, instead 
of saying ἡμᾶς εἶχε ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἀκούσαντας, 
or something similar.” ΤῸ give this in English 
render, ‘‘For having received from God the 
Father honour and glory, (when a voice was 
borne to Him—well pleased), and this voice ye 
heard, ete.”—M.] The transfiguration of Jesus 
on the mount is produced as an example of the 
personal experience of the Apostle of the power 
and appearing of Christ, cf. Acts x. 39; v. 32, 
where Peter also refers to his having been an 
eye-witness.—rtiujv καὶ δόξαν, see 1 Pet. i. 7; 
Rom. ii. 7.10. The former may apply to His 
mission, the latter to His person. [Or perhaps, 
better, and less far fetched, τιμῆν may refer to 
the voice which spoke to Him, and δόξαν to the 
light that shone from Him; so Alford. Burgon 
calls attention to the remarkable resemblance of 
this passage and Jno. i. 14 concerning the same 
event, of which St. Peter and St. John were eye- 
witnesses.—M. ] 

When there came to Him such a voice 
—well pleased.—éveybeionc indicates the man- 
ner how He received honour and glory: φέρεται 


oh SOD Is. ix. 8; Dan. iv. 28, elsewhere 


γίγνεται, Lke. ix. 35. 86, or ἔρχεται, Jno. xii. 30. 
28, denotes the objective, unmistakable, import- 
ant character of the voice. It was not a dream 
or an imaginary illusion, like many fables, but it 
was a voice sounding from on high. The word 
is repeated with emphasis in the next verse. 
According to Matthew xvii. 5, and Mark ix. 7, 
it came out of a bright cloud, but Peter carries 
us higher up to the μεγαλοπρεπὴς δόξα, of which 
the cloud was only the symbol. The last words 
seem to be a periphrasis of God Himself (so 
Gerhard, de Wette, Huther and al.), such as 
δύναμις is used in Matt. xxvi. 64; cf. Ps. civ. 2; 
1 Tim. vi. 10.--οὐτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός; the same words 
occur in Matt., but with the addition: αὐτοῦ 
ἀκούετε, and ἐν @ instead of εἰς ὃν; the latter oc- 
curs also at Matt. xii. 18.—eic indicates the di- 
rection of the Divine pleasure on Him from be- 
fore the foundation of the world; according to 
Dietlein, the historical motion of the Divine plan 
of salvation with reference to Him. [Words- 
worth:—The originality of the reading εἰς ὅν 
evddxyoa may be remarked as an argument for 
the genuineness of the Epistle. A forger would 
have copied the reading in St. Matthew, xvii. 5.— 
M.] 


Ver. 18. And this voice we heard, etc.— 
ἡμεῖς refers specifically to the three Apostles, 
Peter, James and John, while the plural number 
in vy. 16 includes also the other Apostles. The 
celestial declaration was not reported to us by 
others, but. we heard it, being with Him at the 
time, with our own ears. 


On the holy mount.—Not on Mount Zion, as 
Grotius maintains, connecting it erroneously with 
the incident recorded in Jno. xii. 28. Calvin: 
“Ὁ Wherever the Lord comes, He hallows (because 
He is the fountain of all holiness) everything by 
the fragrance of His presence.” The mountain 


of transfiguration is generally identified with 
Mount Tabor, about two hours’ distance from 
Nazareth, in the north-eastern part of the plain 
of Jezreel; but because Mount Tabor was forti- 
fied, and consequently not a solitary place, and 
because Jesus at that time had retired to the 
head-waters of the river Jordan, the mountain 
of transfiguration is placed by others in the 
neighbourhood of Hermon. See Zeller, Biblisches 
Worterbuch 11. 710. [The epithet ‘‘holy,” ap- 
plied to that mount, affords evidence that the his- 
tory of the transfiguration was well known at the 
time when Peter wrote this Epistle. The infer- 
ence of de Wette, that it indicates a belief of 
the miraculous, is neither logically correct nor 
creditable to his estimate of Apostolical Christi- 
anity.—M. ] 

Ver. 19.—Here follows the second testimony 
for the glory of Christ and the irrefragable cer- 
tainty of his doctrine, viz.: the word of prophecy. 
The reference here is evidently to the prophecies 
of the Old Testament, which are taken as a con- 
nected whole, and not to the prophecies of the 
New Testament, as Griesbach alleges. Ch. ii. 1, 
etc., settles this point, which is further confirmed 
by other references of Peter to Ὁ. T. prophecies, 
ef. 1 Pet. i. 10; Acts iii. 18; x. 48. Bengel: 
“The words of Moses, Isaiah and all the pro- 
phets really constitute only one word (sermo) ex- 
hibiting a perfect agreement in all its parts.” 

And we have the prophetic word as 
more sure.—iyouev. ‘*We possess,” not, ‘‘ We 
hold it surer.”” βεβαιότερον, not ““ fast” or ‘very 
fast,’ as Luther and Beza. The force of the com- 
parative must be brought out. Gerhard: ‘The 
testimony of the prophets is declared to be more 
sure than that of the Apostles concerning the 
voice of the Father in heaven and the transfigu- 
ration of Christ. Not more sure per se and ab- 
solutely, but in respect of the readers of the 
Epistle. Among these were converts from Ju- 
daism who paid the utmost reverence to the pro- 
phetical writings and did not set so high a value 
on the preaching of the Apostles.” Cf. Acts xvii. 
11. So (substantially) Augustine, Bede and ai. 
But Peter was hardly prepared to subordinate 
the testimony of his eyes and ears to that of the 
prophets. The view of de Wette is forced, ‘‘the 
prophetic word is more sure to us now (that we 
have seen and heard these things, vv. 17. 18).” 
Nor can we approve of Huther’s exposition, that 
in respect of the Christian’s hope the word of 
prophecy is more sure and certain than the tes- 
timony of the transfiguration, which presented 
only the glory of Christ in the days of His flesh, 
but did not directly confirm His future coming 
in glory (this is the sense in which he takes the 
παρουσία), whereas the prophetic word does point 
to the future coming of Christ. Oecumenius 
gives the right sense, saying that the truth of 
the promise was confirmed by its fulfilment, and 
that this has made the prophetic word more sure 
and certain now than it was before. So Grotius, 
Bengel, Dietlein. ‘‘ We possess now the prophe- 
cies of the Old Testament as more sure than they 
were before.”’ Gerlach: ‘The fulfilment of the 
chief burden of the prophecies, viz., the mani- 
festation of Jesus Christ, has now confirmed them 
altogether more fully to us than before.” [But 
although Fronmiiller endorses the view of Oecu- 


20 


menius, Grotius, Bengel, Dietlein, as the right 
view, we have to object, that the Apostle has no 
such reference to now and then; but which is the 
right view? Alford seems to come nearest; he 
adheres to the grammatical force of the compara- 
tive, and renders ‘“ We have, i. e., we possess, more 
sure,” etc.; and explains the comparison of the 
word of prophecy and the incidents of the trans- 
figuration. The Apostle calls the former more 
sure than the latter, because of its wider range, 
embracing not only a single testimony to Christ, 
as that Divine voice did, but τὰ εἰς χριστὸν παθή- 
ματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας, 1 Pet. i. 11; as 
presenting a broader basis for the Christian’s 
trust, and not only one fact, however important. 
—To this may be added the fact that the voice 
from heaven and the vision of the transfiguration 
were vouchsafed to the three Apostles only, but 
the testimony of the word of prophecy, as the 
concurrent testimony of many inspired persons 
in different ages, is vouchsafed to the whole 
Church and to every individual believer.—M. ] 
Hence the increased responsibility of those who 
despise it.—Others refer the comparison to the 
myths, mentioned in y. 16, so Semler; but say- 
ing that the word of prophecy is more sure than 
those myths, would be saying very little indeed. 
_ Whereunto ye do well—dark place.— 
@ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες, to which ye do well 
that ye take heed. The Participle is used be- 
- cause they had already begun to do so (Winer, 
p. 46,1). De Wette remarks that this seems to 
apply to Jewish Christians, but it applies still 
better to Gentile Christians, because it was self- 
evident in the case of the former.—mpooéyovrec 
8c. νοῦν, to give attention, bend the mind, give 
heed to a thing, cf. Heb. ii. 1; Acts viii. 6. 10. 
11; xvi. 14; 1 Tim. i. 4..; iv. 1.18; Tit, i. 14; 
Hebr. vii. 13.—dc λύχνῳ gaivovre; λύχνος, a light, 
a lantern, a candle used at night. Bengel takes 
φαίνοντι as the Imperfect on account of διαυγάσῃ ; 
but better take it as a Present.—aiyynpdc—ary, 
arid, rough, dusty, dirty, dim, dark, because filth 
and darkness are often found together. What is 
meant by this dark place cannot be determined 
until we have ascertained the sense of the words 
following. 

Until the day shall have dawned.— 
foc ob belongs to προσέχοντες, not to φαίνοντι. 
Many commentators understand the day of the 
blissful eternity. So Calvin: “This darkness I 
extend to the whole course of earthly life, and in- 
terpret that that day shall dawn when we shall 
see face to face that which we now see only 
through a mirror and in ariddle. Christ indeed 
shines on us in the Gospel as the Sun of Righ- 
teousness, yet so that our spirit, in part at least, 
remains shrouded in the darkness of death until 
we shall enter heaven from this carnal prison. 
house. Then shall dawn the splendour of.the 
day, when no mists and clouds of ignorance and 
error shall shut out from us the clear view of the 
Sun.” Similarly Dietlein: «The moment of 
Christ’s coming.” τόπος αὐχμηρός would accord- 
ingly denote not only the whole pre-christian era, 
but also the whole of this present life, the world 
not yet illumined by the glorious coming of 
Christ, and the hearts of believers, as yet not 
seeing, but only longing for the glory of Christ. 
This gives a beautiful meaning, and we may 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


eee — 


certainly call even the time of the New Tes- 
tament, night, as contrasted with the future era, 
in which the glory of God shall light the heavenly 
Jerusalem and the Lamb shall be the light there- 
of, Rom. xxi. 28. But Gerhard rightly objects 
to this interpretation, that if the day referred to 
were the day of a blissful eternity, ἡμέρα ought 
to have the article, and that such a description 
of the day of Christ’s advent to glory, or of the 
last judgment is against all analogy. Others in- 
terpret the verse of the contrast between the time 
of the Old Testament and that of the New. But 
it is against this view that the time of the N. T. 
had already dawned in a general sense, while the 
Cony. Aor. points to something future and possible. 
The reference, as Calvin observes, is rather to 
the antithesis between the state of nature and 
the state of grace. The day dawns in the heart, 
when man awakes from his dream-life, when 
the light of the holiness and justice of God 
shines into his heart, and enables him clearly to 
perceive his sinfulness; the morning star arises, 
when thereupon he is profoundly and vitally 
moved by the mercy of God in Christ, and faith- 
ful to the leadings of grace, gradually attains toa 
knowledge of Christ and the Divine mysteries, 
which is continually growing, expanding and 
developing into greater clearness and perfection, 
ef. Rom. xiii. 12; 2 Cor. iv.6; Eph. v.14. The 
readers of this Epistle are indeed spoken of as 
knowing and established in the truth, vy. 12, but 
immediately before it is also said that they stand 
in need of constant reminding. This involves 
not any more a contradiction than does the lan- 
guage of Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
where, at ch. i. 18, he prays that the eyes of their 
understanding might be enlightened, although 
he had said before that God had abounded to- 
ward them in all wisdom and prudence, ch. i, 8. 
9. The majority of the readers of this Epistle 
we may consider to have stood only in the outer 
court of the sanctuary, at the beginning of true 
conversion ; they believed the external evidences, 
held to the word of prophecy, separated them- 
selves from the world, but had not yet attained a 
vital knowledge of Christ and entered into inti- 
mate communion with Him.—[This is substan- 
tially the view of Huther and Alford; see the lat- 
ter, whose notes are very full on this passage. 
—M. 

rer the morning star shall have arisen 
in your hearts.—d¢wo¢dépoc, light-bringing sc. 
ἀστήρ, the morning star. Hesych. understands 
by it the Sun. [This is a tradition among com- 
mentators, which has been set aside by Alford, 
who, instead of quoting from the commentators, 
quotes Hesych., who merely says: φωσφόρος, dwro- 
δότης, λαμπρὸς ἀστὴρ, light-bringer, light-giver, 
bright star.—M.], but the word is not used in 
this sense elsewhere, whereas Christ calls Him- 
self the bright Morning Star, that heralds the 
eternal sunrise, Rev. xxii. 16. To him that over- 
cometh he promises the Morning Star, ἡ. 6.» Him- 
self and the brightness of His grace, Rey. ii. 28.— 
διαυγάζειν used of dawn. Huther quotes a pas- 
sage from Polybius [ἅμα τῷ dravydlew.—M.] ἐν 
ταῖς καρδίαις, in the hearts touched by grace, not 
in the world generally. Now we perceive clearly 
what is meant by the dark place (αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ); 
it is, as Bengel explains it, our heart, which be- 


CHAP. 


I, 12-21. 21 


------ ----ςςςς-ς-- - 5 ss Se ΠΟ ἑ "Ὁ" 


fore conversion, is unclean, dry and dark. But 
considering that the same state of heart is every- 
where in the world, the world in general may be 
described as an arid, desert and dark place.— 
ἕως ov with Aor. Conj. denotes the duration of an 
action, until the possible event has actually taken 
place. Winer, p. 812. But this does not imply 
that the use of prophecy is superfluous after the 
illumination has taken place, cf. Matt. i. 25; y. 
18, 26. This is evident from the examples of the 
Apostles themselves. 

Ver. 20. Knowing this first of all.—The 
Apostle having exhorted them to give heed to 
prophecy, now further reminds them of the origin 
of prophecy, and that it must be interpreted in 
the same spirit, out of which it proceeded.— 
τοῦτο belongs to what follows.—pérov, not as 
Bengel, ‘‘before I say it’ [priusguam ego dico], 
but first and foremost, 1 Tim. ii. 1, being con- 
scious, bearing in mind, Jas. i. 8; Heb. x. 34, 
like εἰδότες, 1 Pet. i. 18. 

That all prophecy of the Scripture is 
not matter of its own interpretation.—It 
is not necessary to understand here a Hebraism, 
Winer, p. 185. The preceding shows that the 
reference is to the prophecies contained in the 
Old Testament. The prophecy of the Scripture 
is opposed to the false prophets. Ch. ii. 1.— 
οὐκ ἰδίας ἐπιλυσέως, happens not as matter of its 
own interpretation. ἐπελύειν, Mk. iv. 34, to in- 
terpret, to expound, to settle, to determine, to 


decide, Acts xix.39.= WD Gen. xli. 12, x1. 8. 


The reference is to the origin, not to the inter- 
pretation of the prophecy, as is evident from y. 
21. Even as to its origin it is not matter of its 
own interpreting. ‘The prophets, receiving the 
prophecies, were passive: a vision, a painting 
appeared before their mind, which they described 
to their hearers and readers as they saw it, with- 
out understanding all it signified, so that they 
themselves searched what or what manner of 
time the Spirit did signify, 1 Pet. i. 10-12.”—« A 
prophecy only expresses that which God had 
communicated to the seer, and is consequently as 
much an object of search and deciphering to him 
as it is to us.” Gerlach.—Idiac is most simply 
construed with θελήματι ἀνθρώπου; that which 
depends on the exercise of the natural power and 
will of man. 
sage from Philo: ‘‘A prophet utters nothing of 
his own.” Dietlein’s interpretation is too full: 
“ΝῸ prophecy occurs in the Scripture that could 
be regarded as already possessing its own inter- 
pretation; all prophecy has rather the signifi- 
cance and interpretation of history, and there- 
fore must not be treated allegorically, but has its 
fulfilment in the facts of history and thence also 
its interpretation.” Huther institutes a compari- 
son with Joseph’s interpretation of dreams, Gen. 
xl. 8. The words in which Joseph foretells the 
prisoners their fate constitute the προφητεία; this 
presupposes, on the part of Joseph, an ἐπίλυσις, 
an interpretation of those dreams; but Joseph 
ascribes that power to God, ef. Gen. xli. 15. 16. 
Better take those dreams as προφητεία, the inter- 
pretation of which was communicated to Joseph 
from on high. Bengel defines ἐπέλυσις as the in- 
terpretation in virtue of which the prophets were 
18 


De Wette cites the following pas- 


enabled to unlock to men things previously 
locked up. 

[Alford shows that the reference here is to the 
prophets themselves, who were unable to solve or 
interpret. He quotes from Oecumenius; τουτ- 
ἔστιν ὅτι λαμβάνουσι μὲν ἀπὸ θεοῦ οἱ προφῆται τὴν 
προφητείαν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς ἐκεῖνοι βούλονται, ᾽αλλ᾽ ὡς 
τὸ κινοῦν αὐτοὺς ἐνεργεῖ πνεῦμα. καὶ ἤδεσαν μὲν καὶ 
συνίεσαν τὸν καταπεμπόμενον αὑτοῖς προφητικὸν λόγον, 
ov μέντοι καὶ τὴν ἐπίλυσιν αὐτοῦ ἐποιοῦντο. . . . . . 


Huther’s view arises 
from the consideration that ἐπίλυσις is not the 
subsequent interpretation of a prophecy already 
given, but the intelligent apprehension of the 
meaning of the prophecy out of which (but not 
ἰδίας on the part of those by whomit is sent), the 
prophecy itself springs. This Alford considers 
much confirmed by γίνεται, which with a Geni- 
tive, as here, is not—éorvy, but rather seems to 
denote origin. So that the sense will be, that 
prophecy springs not out of human interpretation, i. 
e., isnot a prognostication made by a man know- 
ing what he means when he utters it; but, ete. 
This seems also to be the view of Bengel.—M. ] 

Ver. 21. For no prophecy—Holy Ghost. 
—Further substantiation of the foregoing posi- 
tion negatively and positively.—Oe%f#uari, Dative 
of the cause, cf. ad rem Johni. 18. The pleasure, 
the arbitrary will of man as opposed to the Spirit 
of God.—The sense: The production of a true 
prophecy does not depend upon the exercise of 
man’s own power, as it was attempted in the case 
of heathen divination —jvé 747 answers to évey- 
θείσης φωνῆς, verses 17. 18, and denotes not the 
utterance (so De Wette), but the origin.—d¢epé- 
μενοι corresponds to the classical terms θεοφό- 
ρῆτος, θεοφορούμενος. They were impelled, borne 
along by the Holy Ghost, like a ship before. 
a strong wind. Under this influence they re- 
mained passive, although they were fully con-. 
scious. Josephus says of Balaam, that he was 
moved by the Divine Spirit, ef. Heb. i. 1. Calov: 
“It relates as much to inward illumination as to 
outward impulse, yet not so that the prophets. 
lost all self-control,” Ps. χῖν. 1.---ἐλάλησαν (see 
Appar. Crit.) This includes also their writings, 
Acts 11. 31; Jas. v.10. Their written words were 
determined by the Holy Ghost not only as to. 
their contents, but, in a certain manner, also ag 
to their form.—ayio Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, ef. 1 Tim. vi. 
11, particular instruments of the Holy Ghost, 
prophets or other holy men. This proves the 
security and the venerable character of the testi- 
mony of prophecy. But it is also to suggest the 
conclusion, that due regard being had to the 
matter, prophecy must not be arbitrarily inter- 
preted, but in the sense of the Holy Ghost. Ber- 
nard says: ‘“‘With the same spirit in which the 

| Holy Scripture is written, it must be read and 


22 


understood.” For the Holy Ghost is the best 
interpreter of His words. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The evangelical Church rests upon the 
double foundation of the pure, unadulterated 
word of God and the great truth of the sinner’s 
justification through faith in the saving merit of 
Christ. ‘It is remarkable,” says Besser, ‘that 
in the first chapter of this Epistle, written with 
the design of fortifying the Church against false 
teaching, the Apostle extols first that precious 
faith whereby we possess righteousness and ex- 
hibit virtue, and then the precious Scriptures, 
the light of the world in a dark place.” 

2. Mark the Apostle’s anxious care to leave to 
believers a written testimony of the fundamental 
truths of the Gospel directed against the many 
false teachers, who even then began to stir them- 
selves. ‘Peter therefore was not of opinion that 
oral tradition could preserve the memory of Apos- 
tolical teaching. It was for this very reason that 
he wrote; yea, he foretells, that the truth would 
be perverted by feigned words (ch. ii. 8); to these 
he opposes Holy Scripture, that is, the sure pro- 
phetie word of the Old Testament and the Apos- 
tolical eye- and ear-witness of JesusChrist, which 
is written in the books of the New Testament, 
ch, iii. 16.”—Chemnitz. 

3. Ver. 16 and the following verses contain 
strong evidence of the genuineness of our Epistle. 
Stier: “The presumption that words, dogmas, 
testimonies like those contained in the second 
Epistle of Peter from beginning to end, could 
have originated in the mind of a forger, that such 
power and illumination, such assurance of speech 
could have coéxisted in the same soul alongside 
of a so-called pious fraud,—that this μυθολόγος, 
should intentionally personate in a ‘second 
Epistle” the Apostle exhorting, confessing and 
prophesying before his death, and yet have the 
audacity of expressly renouncing all σεσοφισμέ- 
vouc μίθους, and withal endowed with such ex- 
traordinary knowledge, and using such bold ori- 
ginal language—such an hypothesis contradicts 
the whole psychology of the Christian conscious- 
ness, and the real defenders of the genuineness 
of the Epistle should not be ashamed to confess 
it openly out of their Christian consciousness.” 

[Ver. 19. Wordsworth: “A forger, personating 
St. Peter, would have magnified the importance 
of the supernatural visions youchsafed especially 
to him whose character he assumed. He would 
have exalted those revelations above prophecy. 
But the Apostle, whose characteristic is humility, 
is not ‘elated by the greatness of his revelations,” 
but wisely and soberly commends the ordinary 
means of grace, which all Christians, of every age 
and country, possess in the sacred Seriptures, 
as of more cogency and value for their assurance 
and growth in grace, than any extraordinary vi- 
sions which were vouchsafed personally to him- 
self.”’—M. ] 

4, We should consider the Transfiguration of 
Jesus not only as a miraculous testimony in fa- 
vour of His Divine mission for the disciples, but 
also as a seal set to His glory for Himself. See 
Stier, II., 198; Lange on Matt. xvi. 28. i ly fae ie 
Beck, Lehrwissenschaft, 1., 512. 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


——_———————————————————— --:; γος, --- τ ΈΓ Γ 


5. De Wette thinks it strange that the author, 
in his argument, verses 19-21, does not quote the 
speeches of Christ Himself concerning His coming, 
as recorded by the synoptists; that ch. iii. 16, 
shows that he must have been acquainted with 
them, and that he passes them by because the 
rapid succession of the destruction of Jerusalem, 
and the advent of Christ announced in them, had 
not been verified. But this remark proceeds on 
wholly false premises, and it formed part of the. 
Apostle’s plan’ to advert not to the testimony of 
Christ, which might have been disputed by the 
scoffers, and of which the adversaries, at all 
events, did not think very highly, but to the tes- 
timony of eye-witnesses of Christ.—Delitzsch, 
Psychol., 312: «ΤῺ 6 manner of the revelation of 
prophecy is not always ecstatic; it may also con- 
sist only in that the willing, the thinking and the 
feeling Spirit-life of the prophet in a state of 
full and waking self-power is raised and borne 
along by a gentle, Divine influence, which he 
(and this is indispensable) is able clearly to dis- 
tinguish from the working of his own spirit.” 

6. Those who, like many adherents of sepa- 
ratistic tendencies, take so one-sided a view of 
prophecy that they place it alongside, or even 
above the work of Christ, prove that the day has 
not yet dawned to them, and that the morning- 
star has not yet risen in their hearts. But the 
pretext that the day has dawned, says Roos, should 
not cause men to despise the word of prophecy; 
they should rather inquire whether it is day? 

[7. Wordsworth: “‘ Herein consists the probation- 
ary use of prophecy, viz., to try the faith and exer- 
cise the vigilance and patience of believers, and to 
make unbelievers themselves to become witnesses to 
the truth, and instruments in establishing it. Jf 
prophecy had been ἰδίας ἐπελύσεως, if its interpre- 
tation had been declared at the same time with its 
delivery, then none of those moral and probationary 
purposes would have been answered. The fulfil- 
ment of prophecy in a manner contrary to all 
previous expectation, proves the prophecy to be 
Divine.” —M. ] 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The Apostle’s motto is that of his Master: ‘I 
must work while it is day; the night 
cometh when no man can work.’’—The nearness 
of departure a powerful motive of working for 
the Lord.—‘‘Those who in unbelief despise the 
revelation of God, fall superstitiously into fables,” 
2 Thess. ii. 11, Besser.—Christianity is objec- 
tively given and revealed from on high, and in- 
finitely remote and different from all human de- 
vices, subjective opinions, and personal imagi- 
nings.—The testimony of the prophets and the 
Apostles two immoyeable pillars for the support 
of the truth of the Gospel.—Dawn in the conver- 
sion of a sinner.—When does the morning-star 
arise inthe heart? The true key to understand- 
ing the word of prophecy.—The secret of the 
true interpretation ®f the sacred Scriptures. 
Srarke:—Teachers must not desist from teach- 
ing, exhorting and admonishing, 1 Tim. iv. 138.— 
Grow not weary in exhorting one another. Fore- 
most among good works is the work of saying 
souls from the burning, Jas. v. 19. 20. The op- 


CHAP. I. 12-21. 28 


portunity is daily at hand; we must not wait for 
to-morrow.—There is nothing more certain than 
death, nothing more uncertain than the time of 
death. Happy is the man who daily lives as if 
he were to die to-day, Eccl. ix. 12.—It cannot be 
denied that God by some peculiar grace announces 
to some the time of their death, not indeed in 
virtue of immediate revelation, but in virtue of 
some deep impression conveyed to the heart; but 
this happens hardly to one in ἃ thousand: dear 
friend, wait not for it, but prepare betimes.— 
The good which hearers have heard from their 
teachers, or seen in them, they should diligently 
remember after their decease, Heb. xiii. 7.— 
Those who run_after will-o’-the-wisps, will sink 
into morasses. Christians are on their guard 
against such lights. Christ and His word the 
true Light on our ways, John viii. 31.—Those 
who seek to glorify Christ in others, and desire 
to fill worthily the office of glorifying Him in a 
manner worthy of the Holy Ghost, must have ex- 
perienced with Christ (although in an inferior 
degree, and in a different yet true manner,) the 
power and glory of Christ in themselves, and be 
able to speak according to the Holy Scripture 
from their own experience (2 Cor. iv. 6).—With 
those who suffer themselves to be found in Christ 
through faith, God is as well pleased as with 
Christ Himself. For He has been made righ- 
teousness unto us, so that in Him we are con- 
sidered righteous, 2 Cor. v. 21.—O man, that art 
by nature dark, suffer thyself to be made a bright 
and shining light through the right use of the 
word of God, or thou wilt not see the light of 
heaven, John y. 35.—Whatever remains as yet 
dark to us in the word of prophecy, shall here- 
after become all light, if not in this present time, 
yet, according to the promise in Dan. xii. 4. 9. 
10, when Christ, the true Morning Star, shall 
arise on that great day both of judgment and 
light, 1 Cor. xiii. 12.—It is enough to have learnt 
something from the word of God. As the light 
of day grows more bright after dawn, so also the 
knowledge of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ 
must grow and increase.—Holy Scripture does 
not contradict itself. Though it seem so, it is 
not so. Compare the one with the other, and 
you will find the most beautiful agreement.—God 
uses holy (sanctified) men in His service, so that 
those who would be His instruments, must also 
be His temples and work-shops.—Reasonable 
proof of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost: He spake 
of future things by the prophets, which things, 
for the most part, have come to pass; but this is 
solely a work of the omniscient God. 

GERHARD :—There is no other access to recon- 
ciliation with God and to forgiveness except 
through the Son, Is. xlii. 1; for Christ’s sake 
and through Christ only are we made partakers 
of those blessings. 

Roos:—Woe to him, whose works, words and 
writings cause others to sin, even after his death. 
Happy he, whose works, words and writings 


bear good fruit, even after his death. Such an 
one’s reward of grace will be great. 

Lisco:—Pastoral fidelity even unto death.— 
The legacy of a departing pastor.—The firm 
foundation of the citizenship of the heavenly 
kingdom, 

Kaprr:—The firm reason of our faith. This 
reason rests, 1. on the outward testimony of the 
Apostles and the miracles of Christ; 2. on the 
inward testimony of the Holy Ghost. 


Staupt:—How firmly Christians may step 
forward in their faith, 1. in all that depends on 
the coming of Jesus in the flesh; 2. in all that 
depends on the coming of Jesus to glory. 


[On Ver. 15.—Zllustration:—When Socrates 
was about to take the poison, to which the Athe- 
nian judges had condemned him, Crito asked 
him, ‘‘But how shall we bury thee?” Socrates 
replied, ‘‘As you please, if you can take me, and 
I do not elude your pursuit.”” Then gently smil- 
ing and looking at us he said: ‘‘Friends, | can- 
not persuade Crito that I am that Socrates who 
now converses with you... . , but he thinks 
that I am he whom he shall shortly see dead, and 
asks me how I would be buried. I have already 
declared that after I have drunk the poison, 7 
should no longer remain with you, but shall depart to 
certain felicities of the blessed.”’ Plato, Phedon, 64. 
M.] 


[Srcker:—We find in multitudes of places, 
from the earliest book of Scripture to the latest, 
supernatural impulses and illuminations ascribed 
to the Spirit of God: Gen. vi. 3; xli. 38; Numb. 
xi, 25. 26; xxiv. 2; 1 Sam: x. 10; 2 Kings ii. 9, 
etc.: 1 Chron. xii. 18; 2 Chron. xv. 1: Neh. ix. 
30; Ezek. ii. 2; Zech. vii. 12; Rev. i. 10; ii. 7; 
iv. 2, etc.; we cannot doubt, therefore, but they 
proceed from Him always, though sometimes it 
is not expressly affirmed. So that we are to 
honour the third Person as the immediate inward 
instructor of men from the foundation of the 
world; as Him who hath admonished, reproved 
and striven with the wicked; who hath warmed 
and cheered the hearts of the pious in all times 
with the manifestations of God’s will, with dec- 
larations of His favour, with precautions against 
unseen dangers, with promises of deliverance 
from the heaviest afflictions, with His presence 
and guidance in the most intricate difficulties.” 
—M. |] 

[On Ver. 21.—See Bp. Hurp’s Sermon on 
False Ideas of Prophecy, and the whole volume 
will be found a most valuable aid to students of 
the difficult subject of prophecy. It is entitled 
‘An Introduction to the Study of the Prophecies,” etc. 
vol. 5 of the works, but also published separately. 
See also Dr. McCaut’s Essay on Prophecy in 
‘* Aids to Faith,” ΒΡ. Euuicorr’s Essay on Scrip- 
ture and its Interpretation, in the same volume, 
and Canon Worpsworrtn’s Essay on the Inter- 
pretation of Scripture, in the volume ‘‘ Replies to 
Essays and Reviews.” —M. ] 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


CHAPTER II. 1-10a. 


ANALYsIs :—Warning against the false prophets with reference to their inevitable punishment, illustrated by three ex- 


1 


2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
0 


amples. 


1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false 


teachers among you, who! privily? shall bring in damnable heresies,’ even* denying 
the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many 
shall follow their pernicious ways,°® by reason of whom the way of truth® shall be evil 
spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make. merchan- 
dise of? you: whose judgment now of a long time® lingereth not, and their damnation 
slumbereth not. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to 
hell, and delivered them into chains? of darkness, to be reserved “unto judgment; And 
spared not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth person, a preacher of righteous- 
ness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of 
Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them an 
ensample unto those that after should live ungodly ; And delivered" just Lot, vexed 
with the filthy conversation” of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among 
them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their un- 
lawful deeds:) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation,and. to 
reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that 
walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. 


1 οἵτινες of a class, not simply identifying the individuals. Alford.—M.] 

Ξπαρεισάξουσιν, to bring in by the side of (apa), introduce surreptitiously.—M.] 

8 aipéoecs, heresies, t. ¢., self-chosen doctrines repugnant to the truth.—M. 

4 Both apvovpevorandémayovres are to be connected with παρεισάξουσιν. They are not, how- 
ever, co-ordinate to each other; as ἐπάγοντες must be annexed to the clause ot reves... apvov- 
μενοι. Winer, p. 368.—M.] 

(German: But there arose also false prophets among the people . . . . who privily shall bring in self-chosen 
doctrines of destruction, and deniers of the Master who bought them, people that bring upon them- 
selves swift destruction. 

Translate: But there were ... . heresies of destruction and denying . . . —M.] 

Verse 2. [δ ἀσελγείαις, A. B.C. K.L. Cod. Sin.,aceAyiacs. Rec.,amwrAetacs.—M.] 

6 A., Cod. Sin. (7) read ὃ ὁ ξ α for 0605.—M.] 


Verse 1. 


(German: ... . their licentiousness . . . —M.] 
Verse 3. [7 Cod. Sin.,éxaop. (** ἐνπορ.).---Μ.] 
ἔκπαλαι, ex olim, Bengel.—M.] 
(German: And snared in covetousness . . . . deceive you. 
Translate: And in covetousness ... . make merchandise of you . . . .—M.] 
Verse 4. [9 σειροῖς, A. B.C. Cod. Sin: σιροῖς ζόφοις (** ζόφου); Rec., al., cecpats.—M.] 
10 Rec., al. τετηρημένους;: A.C. ** al, κολαζομένους τηρεῖν; Cod.Sin..cokagonéevous τηρῖν. 
B. (Mai) C.* K. L., Alford. ‘The readings are in great confusion from the combined influence of Jude 
and y. 9 below.” Alford.—M.]} 
Dietlein prefers the reading, re7 np” €v0vs—those which once should haye been reserved? Lachmann: 
κολαζομένους τηρεῖν. 
(German: ... - but cast them in bonds of darkness into hell, and committed them, in order to be reserved 
unto the final judgment.—M. 
Verse 5, [German:... . and preserved only Noah ... . the herald of righteousness. 
Translate: .... but preserved Noah, preacher of . . . .—M.] 
Verse 6. [German: ... . condemned them to overthrow, laying down an example of warning for those .... 
Translate: ... . laying down an example of those.—M.] 


Verse 7. ΠῚ ἐῤῥύσατο, Rec., A. B.**C.,al. ἐρύσατο, B. *, Alford.—M. 
9) τῆς ἐν ἀσελγείᾳ avagtpogdys—one idea. Behaviour in licentiousness=licentious behaviour.— 


ΜΙ 
German: ... . righteous οὐ... .. of the lawless.—M.] 
Verse 8. [{German: For in seeing and hearing . .. . distressed his righteous soul at (on account of) their immoral 
deeds.—M.]} 


Verse 9. [18 πειρασμῶν, Cod. Sin. (*).—M.] 
Madix. δὲ πεφυλασκισμένους (** improb. red.) εἰς. Cod. Sin.—M.] 
Verse 10. in lust of defilement, and despise government.—M.] 
prophets.” He makes the transition with re- 


ference to the false prophets in Israel, in order 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Connection:—The Apostle, having exhorted 
them to give attention to the prophecy of Holy 
Scripture, ch. i. 19, now warns them against 
the false prophets, delineating their character 
and adverting to their fearful end. As he often 
takes up the words of our Lord in the first Epistle, 
so he doubtless alludes here to passages like 
Matt. xxiv. 11. 12; vii. 15: ‘Beware of false 


that the believers to whom he wrote might not 
be alarmed at the appearance of erroneous teach- 
ers. Paul also had prophesied concerning such 
erroneous teachers, Acts xx. 29. 30. Those se- 
ducers are referred to in the Epistles to Timothy 
and Titus, the first of John, and the book of Re- - 
velation, but especially in the Epistle of Jude. 
In those writings they are mostly described as 
already existing. 


CHAP TE I=10% 25 


-_—_— eee ees 


Ver. 1. But there were false prophets 
also—destruction.—Besides those holy men 
of God, there were also false prophets among the 
people; the history of Ahab shows this, the books 
of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel prove it 
more particularly, and ver. 15, below, gives an 
example in the case of Balaam.—wevdodiddokahor 
found here only, formed analogously to ψευδολόγος, 
1 Tim. iv. 2; and ψευδοπροφῆται. [Alford remarks 
that ψευδο, in the latter, is ambiguous, the word 
being either subjective—pretenders, not real pro- 
phets, or objective—prophesiers of false things; 
cf. for the latter, Jer. xiv. 14, LXX., pevd7 οἱ προ- 
ΦΩ͂Σ mpodyrevovow . . - «; ib. 15; xxiii, 25.— 
M.] Dietlein: ‘‘Not a prophet or teacher who 
prophesies or teaches falsehood, but one who is 
not a prophet and yet falsely pretends to be one, 
ef. 2 Cor. xi. 13; Rev. ii. 2.—[ Better make wevdo, 
in ψευδοδιδάσκολοι, ambiguous, and understand 
not only unauthorized pretenders, but also teach- 
ers of falsehood.—M. 1---παρεισάξουσι, not to bring 
forward, but to bring in beside, introduce secretly. 
In Jude occurs the similar term παρεισέδυσαν, 
they crept in through a false door. Bengel: 
‘Beside the salutary doctrine of Christ.”— 
Aipeowe from aipéw, a doctrine, a school, a sect. 
In the New Testament it is applied to the religious 
parties among the later Jews, contending with 
one another, Acts v. 17; xv. 5; xxvi. 5; in a bad 
sense, ch. xxiv. 5. 14; xxviii. 22. So especially, 
Titus iii. 10. ‘‘A man that isan heretic... . 
reject.” It denotes voluntary, deliberate de- 
viating from purely Christian articles of belief, 
leading to divisions in the Church, ef. Herzog, 
Real. Encycl. Art. Hiiresie.— ἀπωλείας intensifies 
the idea of αἱρέσεις. Not all heresies are equally 
pernicious, not all lead so decidedly to destruc- 
tion. [Doubtful whether this distinction can be 
drawn; it certainly does not pertain ad rem; these 
false teachers, who surreptitiously bring in false 
teaching by the side of the true faith, bring upon 
themselves destruction. Their end is destruction, 
ef. Phil. iii. 19.—M. ] 

Deniers of the Master that bought 
them.—Winer assumes that the two Participles 
ἀρνούμενοι and ἐπάγοντες are not cdordinate to 
each other, but that xai—érdyovrec is to be con- 
nected with the principal verb thus: “ὙΠῸ shall 
bring in corrupting heresies, and also, denying 
the Lord, bring upon themselves swift destruc- 
tion;” too artificial. Others take καί for even, 
‘‘even denying the Lord,” but this use of καί can- 
not be substantiated. Huther proposes to take 
the Participle ἐπάγοντες as the verbum finitum, but 
without any analogy. The construction, how- 
ever, becomes quite simple by taking the three 
Participles codrdinate and alike dependent on 
ἔσονται, and making ἐπάγοντες to refer to the two 
classes of seducers, without distinguishing them 
from each other. This precludes the necessity 
of changing the construction while καὶ retains 
its usual signification. The second form of se- 
ducers is a species of the former. The terms 
παρεισάξουσιν and ἐπάγοντες correspond: they in- 
troduce their errors by stealth, but they draw 
upon themselves open and manifest destruction. 
[The reader has Fronmiiller’s construction in the 
translation, and may think it less artificial than 
awkward. The construction of Alford (who 


takes καὶ as the simple Copula, and regards 
ἀρνούμενοι as standing in the place of the finite 
verb, cdordinate with παρεισάξουσιν, followed, as 
a Consequence, by ἐπάγοντες x. τ. A.) seems least 
difficult; he renders ‘and denying the Master 
who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift 
destruction.” —M. ] 

Of the Master that bought them.—deorérnc de- 
notes an absolute ruler [an autocrat,—M.] of 
bondmen or slaves. It is used of God the Father, 
Luke ii. 29; Acts iv. 24; Rev. vi. 10. Here the 
context requires us to apply it to Christ, ef. Jude 
4, and Rev. i. 8, where Christ is called the Al- 
mighty. This term suits ἀγοράζειν better than 
κύριος.---Ἰ Peter i. 18, has λυτροῦσθαι for ἀγοράζειν, 
the former of which indicates the infinitely pre- 
cious ransom, generally ἐξαγοράζειν, to buy back 
from, out of, Gal. iii. 13; iv. 5; Eph. vy. 16; Col. 
iv. 5. The simple ἀγοράζειν occurs at 1 Cor. vi. 
20; Rev. v. 9; xiv. 8. 4. Calov: ‘The ransom is 
the blood of Christ, Matt. xx. 28. He, to whom 
it has been paid, is God, who chiefly held us in 
prison, whereas the devil is only His prison- 
keeper, from the hands of whom Christ has de- 
livered us, Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 14. God in virtue 
of His justice required a ransom for our deliver- 
ance; in virtue of His mercy He accepted the 
ransom, which Christ paid for us.”—Gerlach 
says: ‘‘These erroneous teachers had already be- 
come Christians, they had already experienced 
the saving effects of redemption, and had really 
left the service of the devil in Judaism or Pagan- 
ism for the service of Christ.” In support of 
this view v. 21 may be cited. But ἀγοράζειν is 
generally used to denote absolutely the vicarious 
satisfaction of Christ extending to all men, and 
consequently also to these false teachers; it is 
not used with the limitation that the effect of it 
has been experienced, as Calvin maintains, ef. 1 
Tim. ii. 6; Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 14. Gerhard 
makes use of the illustration of a Christian ruler 
who pays a certain ransom for the redemption of 
prisoners into the hands of the Turkish Sultan. 
Those prisoners are truly redeemed, although 
they should refuse to accept the benefit of their 
liberation and continue in their bonds. 

Deniers of the Master.—Their wickedness is 
the more enormous, because they deny their 
greatest Benefactor, in the service and confession 
of whom they ought cheerfully to die. The man- 
ner of their denial is not further defined. Ben- 
gel adds: ‘By their doctrine and works.” Per- 
haps it is the same kind of denial as that of the 
false teachers in 1 Jno. ii. 28; iv. 2; y. 12; 2 
Jno. 7. 9. The denial of the historical Christ, 
at once God and Man in one Person, as held and 
afterwards developed by the Gnostics into an 
anti-christian doctrine, partly with highly dan- 
gerous practical consequences. —Their denial 
may have had particular reference to the virtue 
of His sacrificial death and to His royal power 
over us, as His bondsmen.—[St. Peter, in indit- 
ing these words, doubtless felt deeply his own 
conduct in this respect, for notwithstanding the 
warning of Jesus, he denied Him thrice under the 
most painful circumstances. Matt. xxvi. 70. 72. 
—M.] ταχινὴν ἀπώλειαν; ἀπώλεια, destruction, 
ruin in temporal and eternal death. This will 
be sudden, cf. ch. i. 14; their end will be attended 


THE SECOND EPISTLE 


ee τ ----΄--ς--.-΄---ς-ς-.-.-----ς-ς------.-.---- 


with terrors, Ps. Ixxiii. 19. Destruction shall 
overtake them swiftly, 1 Thess. vy. 8, just as the 
coming of Christ will be sudden. 

Ver. 2. And many shall follow after 
their licentiousnesses.—Cf. Matt. xxiv. 11. 12; 
2 Tim. ii. 17. Errors, particularly those which 
give free scope to the flesh, are very contagious. 
[For an account of the Gnostic false teachers see 
below under Doctrinal and Ethical, No. 4.—M.] 
ἀσελγείαις, licentiousnesses, dissolute habits, un- 
clean living. We see from y. 19 that a false 
liberty [really libertinism.—M.] was the gospel 
of those false teachers. They confounded Chris- 
tian liberty with unbridled license. The roots 
of the bold antinomian tendency, which we find 
in the second century among the Carpocratians 
and other Gnostics, descend to the middle of the 
first century. ‘The haughtiness of false spiritu- 
ality and unbridled sensuality with them went 
hand-in-hand.”’ Gerlach. De Wette exhibits 
gross confusion in the remark that ‘ αἱρέσεις being 
called here all of a sudden, ἀσέλγειαι, can only be 
explained from Jude 4.” 

By reason of whom the way of truth 
shall be evil spoken of.—d’ οὖς; refer the 
relative to those who are seduced. The way of 
truth is an expression taken from the Old Testa- 
ment, cf. Gen. xxiv. 48; Ps. exxxix. 24; Jer. 
xviii. 15; Amos viii. 14. The right manner of 
worshipping and serving God. So Acts xix. 9. 
23. As‘a way to a traveller such is true reli- 
gion to us men. It is evil spoken of among 
the heathens and the worldly-minded [Ben- 
gel: ‘ab tis qui foris sunt, discrimen ignoran- 
tibus verorum et falsorum Christianorum.”—M. } 
who charge Christianity with the sins of false 
Christians. ‘They are wont tosay: Look at the 
fruits of the Christian religion! The inference, 
although false, does harm, because it confirms 
those who draw it in their aversion to the truth 
and to Christ Himself.’’ Roos.—Peter in his first 
Epistle, ch. iv. 14, and Paul in Rom. ii. 24 (cf. 
Jas. ii. 7) allude to this evil speaking. [Oecu- 
menius describes the Nicolaitans and Gnostics as 
most ‘unholy in their doctrines and most licen- 
tious in their lives.” Clem. Alex. states as a 
reason for his own writing, that false teachers, 
professing the name of Christians, and yet living 
shameless lives, have brought infamy (βλασφη- 
μίαν) upon the Christian name, even among the 
Gentiles, and that it was necessary to disabuse 
their minds of this illusion, and to vindicate the 
Gospel of Christ. See Wordsworth, who is very 
rich in illustrations on this subject.—M. ] 

Ver. 3. And in covetousness with feign- 
ed words they will make merchandise of 
you.—év πλεονεξία; not only the lust of money, 
but also the lust of honour and pleasure. ᾿Εν is 
significant and denotes that they were sunk and 
immersed in it.—IlAaoroic λόγοις, another expres- 
sion characteristic of Peter, with speeches de- 
ceitfully conceived and invented [‘‘speciously 
fashioned in fair forms so as to allure and de- 
ceive,” Wordsworth; Wetstein quotes Artemid. 
1, 58, πλάσσειν. δοκεῖ, . 1... ἀγαθὸν ῥήτορσι. 
λον τῶν καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀπατεῶσι, διὰ τὸ τὰ μὴ ὄντα 
ὡς ὄντα δεικνύειν τὰς τέχνας ταύτας.---Μ. Cf. ch. 
i. 16; Rom. xvi. 18. Perhaps the reference is 
to fictitious stories of the life of Jesus and the 
Apostles. —’Eyrropetecta:, to trade (Jas. iv. 13), 


26 


GENERAL OF PETER. 


to import goods, to traffic, to make gain of, to 
overreach, cheat, cf. Hos. xii. 1; Proy. 111. 14; 
to deal in a thing, and to acquire a thing by 
traffic, is construed with the Accusative. Winer, 
p. 255, German ed., quotes from Josephus: ἐμπορ. 
τὴν ὥραν τὴν τοῦ σώματος, to trade in the beauty 
of the body; and from Philo: ἐνεπορεύετο τὴν λήθην 
τῶν δικαστῶν, he made profit of the forgetfulness 
of the judges. Hence Winer inclines to the ren- 
dering, ‘‘they will seek to get profit out of you, 
to make gain of you,” or as Dietlein puts it, 
“they will cheat, you” (beschachern).—[The 6th 
ed. of Winer, Engl. Transl., does. not contain 
these quotations. Winer says plainly, p. 236, 
that the word here means, ‘‘make merchandise 
of you.”—M.] Gerlach: ‘‘They will sell you 
for coin the doctrines of their own inventing,” 
ef. 1 Tim. vi. 5; Tit. i. 11. The equally proven 
sense, ‘‘to cheat, to deceive,” seems to be most 
simple. 

For whom judgment from of old lin- 
gereth not.—oic τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι. De Wette 
thinks it necessary to connect κρίμα and ἔκπαλαι, 
as if it were the judgment from of old decreed 
and predicted (Jude 4); for, taken with the 
verb, it would contain a contradiction; a judg- 
ment long since hastening! Dietlein defends 
this sense, saying that both the promises and the 
threatenings are from of old in process of con- 
tinual fulfilment, although their final fulfilment 
is long delayed, ch. iii. 9. But this cannot be 
the meaning of the Apostle, for he speaks of a 
ταχινὴ ἀπώλεια; the sense is rather: ‘‘for whom, 
according to an old experience, the judgment is 
not dilatory.”’ De Wette’s rendering, at any rate, 
is inadmissible; for it would require ἔκπαλαι be- 
fore κρίμα. [Alford renders ‘‘ for whom the sen- 
tence from long since is not idle ”’—after Bengel: 
‘‘non est otiosum,” who explains: τ, e., “plane viget 
unum idemque est judicium super omnes peccantes, 
quod in anima Judicis sine intermissione agitatur 
dum erumpit: et in tis, qui puniti in Scriptura me- 
morantur, ostenditur quid ceteros maneat; tametsi 
peccantes putant, illud cessare ipsique dormitant.” | 

And whose destruction slumbereth not. 
—An original expression, peculiar to Peter. It 
is generally used only of men, as is shown in the 
passage from Plato cited by Huther: μηδὲν δεῖσ- 
θαι νυστάζοντος δικαστοῦ. Gerlach: ‘‘ Punitive 
judgments live in God’s immutable decree and 
break forth at the appointed time, and the spe- 
cific instances recorded in history teach us what 
is in store for all. God is awake as the Judge, 
while He seems to be sleeping; but they, the re- 
creants, sleep the sleep of security, while they 
seem to be awake in undisturbed activity and 
work.” Hugo extends the expression to stings of 
conscience, which form already a part of hell, in 
Gerhard, p. 195. 

Ver. 4. For if God spared not the angels 
that had sinned.—Now follow three exam- 
ples in illustration of ἔκπαλαι, which clearly ex- 
hibit the punitive justice alongside the saying 
justice of God.—ei γάρ. Winer, de Wette and αὐ. 
assume here the existence of an anacoluthon; 
but the apodosis of the three pratases [1.—ei yap; 
2. καὶ apy. Koon; 8. καὶ πόλεις.---Μ.}ὕ occurs at v. 
9, although couched in more general terms than 
might have been expected, respect being had to 
the exhibition of Divine justice to the pious. 


CHAP. II. 1-10. 


27 


a τ τἑἁτἕ τ΄ -΄-΄--Ῥρ-----ρς-ς--ς-ς----- ---------------. 


Spared not.—Bengel: ‘Severe judgment is 
announced upon those of whom we should have 
expected that they would be spared.” Complete 
the sentence thus: “If He did not spare those 
who stood higher and enjoyed greater dignity, 
much less will He spare the less.” [But in or- 
der to bring this out ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων should 
be rendered without the article, viz.: ‘‘For if God 
spared not ANGELS having sinned,” then supply, 
«‘much less will He spare these false teachers.’’— 
M. 
lm had sinned.—In Jude 6, we have the 
addition, ‘who kept not their principality, but 
left their own habitation,” or according to Stier, 
‘¢who left their original true dominion and dig- 
nity,” cf. Jno. viii. 44, Dietlein supposes on un- 
tenable grounds that vy. 4 and 5 belong together, 
and that Peter therefore stands up as an autho- 
rity that Gen. vi. 2, refers not to the Sethites, 
but to angels; that he alludes more particularly 
to that last form of the development of sin when 
they entered into sexual relations with the 
daughters of men. As to Gen. vi. 2 we are un- 
able to abandon the view that it relates to the 
amalgamation of the Sethites and Cainites, cf. 
Luke xx. 384-36. (Dettinger, Tiibinger Zeitschrift, 
1835, 1; Hvangelische Kirchenzeitung, 1858, No. 
29,)—duapryo. ayy. above, probably would never 
haye been interpreted otherwise than as setting 
forth the first fall in the realm of spirits, unless 
the passage, Jude 6. 7, had been believed to con- 
tain a reference to a πορνεία on the part of angels. 
But this view is founded on a false interpretation 
of τούτοις, which belongs not to the first men- 
tioned angels, but clearly to the inhabitants of 
Sodom and Gomorrah, hence the masculine τού- 
τοις. So Keil. It is alleged in the Hvangelische 
Kirchenzeitung that ἐκπορν. is only used to de- 
scribe that kind of incontinence which violates 
an existing bond, that Gen. vi. refers to matri- 
mony, while v. 3 discountenances altogether all 
reference to angels; that angels indeed denote 
sometimes fallen angels, 1 Cor. vi. 3 (against 
Stier); that Jude must not be interpreted by the 
book of Enoch, which, at the time when that Epis- 
tle was written, was perhaps not even extant (?). 
Hence the sinning on the part of angels in our 
passage can only be understood of the revolt of 
Satan and his associates, 1 Jno. iii. 8. 10. Kurtz, 
Delitzsch and al. interpret differently, while 
Keil (Lutherische Zeitschrift, 1855, 2), defends our 
view of Gen. vi. 2 and 2 Peter ii. 4, on weighty 
grounds. The angel interpretation is found in 
Justin, Athenagoras, Cyprian and al.; also in 
the Syrian Church; in the Hellenistic and Pales- 
tinian synagogue; the Sethite interpretation is 
held by writers of the Middle Ages, but also 
earlier by Julius Africanus, Ephrem the Syrian 
and al.; also by Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin. 

But cast-them in bonds of darkness 
into hell and committed them.—oeipa from 
eipecv, to tie, bind, wind(?), a cord, a rope, a 
band, a noose, not achain. Jude 6 has instead, 
δεσμός, a bond, a band, a fetter. [But the most 
authentic reading (see Appar. Crit. on v. 4) is 
σειροῖς from σειρόςΞεεσίφος or σιῤῥός, σιρός, properly 
α cave where corn is stored (Demosth.); a@ pit, a 
wolf’s den; in that case render ‘‘dens of dark- 
dess.” Cf. Alford and the Lexica.—M.] 
Bonds of darkness.—The Book of Wisdom 


xvii. 18, in connection with the plagues of Egypt, 
uses the fellowing expression: ““ἀλύσει σκότους 
ἐδέθησαν, they were bound with indissoluble (?) 
bonds of darkness.” As the bonds here are only 
a figure of the binding (?) power of darkness, so 
they are doubtless in our passage. Hence Ben- 
gel: ‘‘ Darkness itself keeps them bound and is 
to them like a chain.” Jude 5. 6is more ex- 
plicit: ‘*he hath reserved them (bound) in ever- 
lasting chains under darkness.” In both passages 
ζόφος, profound, extreme darkness, is used for 
σκότος. Jude 13. gives both words to express 
the highest degree of darkness. Although these 
bonds must not be taken literally, the darkness 
must not be confined to the darkness of their 
wickedness, but should be taken to denote real 
darkness, and the custody in which they are 
kept, a real custody. But this custody of the 
evil angels, says Bengel, is as yet preliminary, 
and the servants of hell may still remain on 
earth, Lke. viii. 81; Eph. ii. 2; Acts v. 3; xiii. 
10; just as prisoners of war are sometimes per- 
mitted to go beyond the place of their confine- 
ment.—Taprapécac, another term peculiar to Pe- 
ter and not found in the LXX. Grotius rightly 
remarks that it denotes in Classic Greek to cast 
down into Tartarus, not to condemn to Tartarus. 
Nor does τάρταρος occur either in the N. T. or in 
the LXX.; the Greeks conceived it to be the 
lowest region of the earth, full of darkness and 
cold, not a region in the air, as Grotius, quoting 
Plutarch, supposes. So Tertullian, Chrysostom, 
Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret. It is—=afvococ, 
while ἄδης describes the abode of the dead in 
general, and yéevva denotes the final place of pun- 
ishment, the lake of fire, Rev. xx. 10-14; ΜΙ. 
xxy. 44, consequently the preliminary place of 
confinement and state of spirits, similar to what 
Sheol is for men. Huther connects παρέδωκε with 
σειραῖς; but the most simple construction is to 
connect ταρταρώσας with σειραῖς. 

Being kept unto judgment.—Eic κρίσιν 
τηρουμένους belong together. A judgment has 
probably been passed upon them already, but the 
final judgment is still in store for them, cf. Matt. 
viii. 29; Rev. xx. 10; Jas. ii. 19. The Epistle 
of Jude amplifies ‘‘unto the judgment of the 
great day.”—Typovuévovc, as criminals that are 
now reserved for judgment [from a present point 
of view.—M.] Winer, p. 358.—‘‘ They are as un- 
able to work themselves out of their darkness 
as is a prisoner to extricate himself from his 
chains.”,—Roos. But this author errs when he 
continues: ‘Just as the word prison, Job xxxvi. 
13, and the term hell, 1 Sam. 11. 6, do not de- 
scribe a place, but a condition, so the term tar- 
tarize with reference to the apostate angels does 
not describe a being locked up in a bad place, 
but rather the translation to a bad condition. 
These angels, be they wherever they may, are in 
a tartaric condition.” The latter is true, but 
the abstraction, which precedes it, is not bibli- 
cal.—Grotius sees in their being reserved a par- 
ticular reference to their inability of going be- 
yond the confines of the place assigned to them, 
and of doing any thing without permission. Stier 
calls attention to the deep irony which he detects 
in these words, whereby the Almighty holds 
those mighty ones up to derision, an irony of the 
initial judgment of their perverse doings. ‘‘They 


28 


would not keep their first estate and appointed 
habitation, and for this they must now, in virtue 
of the new power exerted against them by the 
Creator, be sadly kept and held fast unto guilt 
and punishment in the state of sin of which they 
made deliberate choice.” This is perhaps too 
ingenious. 

Ver. 5. And spared not the old world, 
but preserved Noah, the eighth person, a 
herald of righteousness.—The second ex- 
ample, which is not given by Jude, is taken from 
the flood. 

The old world, the world primeval. Diet- 
lein: ‘*Not absolutely the antediluvian race; it 
includes impersonal creation in so far as it sur- 
rounded that primordial race and being, as it 
were, its body, participated both in its corruption 
and punishment.’”’—"Oydoov Νῶε. As the Apostle 
in 1 Peter iii. 20, attaches importance to the 
small number of the saved, so he does here in the 
case of Noah and his wife, three sons and their 
three wives; cf. on this use of the ordinal, Winer, 
p. 263. ‘The eight souls are contrasted with the 
most numerous world of the ungodly.”—Bengel. 
Among the Patriarchs Noah is thetenth. There 
is here consequently no room for a prophetico- 
symbolical reference. The allusion is plainly to 
the small number of the saved at all times. 
{ Wordsworth: ‘Seven is the number of comple- 
tion and rest, the Sabbatical number: and in 
Enoch—the seventh from Adam—who walked with 
God, and did not die, but was translated from the 
turmoil of this world to a heavenly rest, and taken 
up to God, there appears to be a figurative ad- 
umbration of the Sabbath of heavenly rest, which 
remaineth to the people of God, Heb. iv. 9.” 
Wordsworth has this note with reference to Jude, 
v. 14: ‘*Hnoch, the seventh from Adam,” and 
thinks that Peter not only calls attention to the 
fact that Noah was saved with seven others, but 
that it places him as it were at the highest point 
of the climax.—M. } 


Herald, preacher of righteousness.— He 
stood up against the world, denounced its un- 
righteousness and corruption, and exhorted it to 
repentance and conversion. Avaxocivy. Huther: 
‘“‘ Here not=righteousness of faith, but in the Old 
Testament sense=piety exhibited in obedience 
to the will of God.” [Alford: The fact that 
Noah was thus a preacher of (moral) righteous- 
ness to the depravity of his age, is found alluded 
to in Joseph. Antig., I., 8. 1,—'O Νώεος δὲ, τοῖς 
πραττομένοις im’ αὐτῶν δυσχεραίνων καὶ τοῖς βουλεύ- 
μασιν ἀηδως ἔχων, ἔπειθεν ἐπὶ τὸ κρεῖττον αὐτοὺς τὴν 
διάνοιαν καὶ τὰς πράξεις μεταφέρειν.  Bereschith 
Rabba, XXX., 6, in Wetstein: “κῆρυξ generationis 
diluvii, id est, Noachus.””—M. ] 

Bringing the flood upon the world of 
the ungodly.—xaraxAvoydv from κατακλύζω, the 
deluge, confluence of the seas, ef. ch. iii. 6. 


45% Gen. vi. 17.—’Exd£ac, that which here is 


referred to the operation of God, is described in 
ch. ii. 1, as the guilt of man. The two should 
go together. [Human depravity the cause of 
Divine punishment.—M. ] 


Ver. 6. And burning to ashes the cities 
of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.—The third 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


example is the destruction of Sodom and Gomor- 
rah, cf. Jude 7.—Te¢poiv from τέφρα, to burn to 
ashes.—Karaorpog7 κατέκρινεν. Dietlein and al. 
translate: ‘‘He condemned them actually by 
overthrow;’? but we prefer rendering with de 
Wette, Huther and al.: ‘‘He condemned them to 
overthrow,” like κατακρίνειν Bavaro, Matt. xx. 18; 
Mark x. 33.—Karaorpody, cf. Gen. xix. 29, LXX.; 
2 Tim. ii. 14; Jude amplifies, see v. 7.---Ὑπό- 
δείγμα τεθεικώς --- παράδειγμα: Jude has δεῖγμα, 
proof, figure, example, similitude, by which some- 
thing is shown, cf. Jas. vy. 10; Heb. iv. 11; viii. 
5; John xiii. 15.—Dietlein strangely accounts for 
the use of the word by Peter’s preference for ὑπό. 
The Perfect is very emphatic, being usually em- 
ployed to denote an action completed, conceived 
as continuing in its effects, οἵ. Winer, p. 286. 
Bengel: ‘It was an irrefragable monument of 
God and of the Divine judgment.”—Peter proba- 
bly alludes here to 3 Mace. ii. 5. 

Ver. 7. And delivered righteous Lot, 
etc. ---Καταπονούμενον, ef. Acts vii. 24, καταπονέω 
to wear down or tire out, to oppress, to harass 
beyond bearing (Alf.). Connect with ὑπὸ τῆς---- 
ἀναστροφῆς. Others join ὑπὸ with ἐῤῥύσατο, ren- 
dering ‘‘out of the power of the bad conversation, 
under the influence of which he had been left,” 
cf. Winer, p. 386.—Ev ἀσελγείᾳ ἀναστροφή, cf. 1 
Peter i. 17.—"Afecuoc from θεσμός, a lawless, 
abandoned man, an antinomian; Bengel: ‘One 
who sins against nature; Gerhard: ‘‘One who 
cares neither for right nor law.” Only here and 
ὉΠ: αἴ. 17. 

Ver. 8. For seeing and hearing the righ- 
teous man, etc.—Parenthetical explanation of 
καταπονούμενον. Instead of the lawless torment- 
ing his soul, it was he, the righteous man, who 
tormented his righteous soul.—BAéupare καὶ ἀκοῇ 
belong to ἐβασάνιζεν. Wherever he turned and 
saw and heard, his soul was distressed at the 
wickedness that surrounded him. ‘The sense 
here is similar to John xi. 88, where it is said of 
Jesus that He ἐτάραξεν ἑαυτόν. Dietlein: ‘Pain 
at one’s own sin and at sin in general must not 
only be felt, but it must be a pain effected by. the 
soul itself by reason of its turning to God.”— 
Καταπονούμενον denotes the passive side of the 
pain. Bede connects δίκαιος with βλέμματι καὶ 
ἀκοῇ, and renders, ‘‘righteous because he did not 
suffer himself to be seduced by seeing and hear- 
ing.” —'Avoduorg ἔργοις denotes the object of his 
distress. 

Ver. 9. The Lord knoweth, etc.—The 
apodosis is expressed in terms which apply the 
preceding examples not only to the lawless, but 
also to the pious.—Olée. Knowledge and power 
combined. Κύρως, God the Father, according to 
γ. 4.—evceBeic, those who like Noah and Lot walk 
in faith in the living God, 

Out of temptation, cf. 1 Peter i. 6; iv. 12; 
Matt. vi. 18; xxvi. 41; Luke viii. 18: Acts xx. 
19; 1 Cor. x. 18; 1 Tim. vi. 9; Heb. iii. 8; Jas. 
i. 2; Rev. iii. 10.—To deliver (rescue, ) cf. Jer. 
xxxix. 11. 18; xlv. 5: Ex. xviii. 10.--Κολαζομέ- 
νους Typeiv.—Some take κολ. as Future, but Winer 
remarks that this is unnecessary, because the 
idea of the Future is already implied in τηρεῖν εἰς 
ἡμέραν; and the Present seems to have been 
chosen intentionally in order to show that their 


CHAP. II. 1-10. 29 


punishment has already begun before the last 
judgment, cf. y. 4. 

Ver. 10. But chiefly those who go after 
the flesh.—Jude v. 7, applies to the cities of the 
plain that which here is affirmed of the false 
teachers, viz., “Πόλεις. . . . ἐκπορνεύσασαι Kai 
ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας. Then in v. 8 it is 
said of the false teachers, that ‘‘likewise these 
. ... defile the flesh.” The comparison of the 
two passages will show that Jude amplifies and 
explains more fully than is the case in our pas- 
sage. Stier interprets ἐκπορνεύειν with reference 
to the next following expression, as=excess of de- 
bauchery, to commit fornication out of all rule 
and order, beyond the limits of nature.—’Ozicw 
σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, besides the horrors of sensuality, 
mentioned in Gen, xix. 5, and Rom. i. 27, refers 
evidently to the terrible sins of Sodom, which are 
enumerated in Ley, xviii. 22-24 among the hor- 
rors of the Canaanite heathen.—Our passage, on 
the other hand, is kept more in general; they 
seek their pasture in the flesh, in all manner of 
sensuality, they go in their infamous lust after 
every flesh. 

In lust of defilement.—'Erifuyia μιασμοῦ, 
not as Dietlein contends, ‘‘in lust, which is de- 
filement,” nor like Huther, ‘‘in lust after impure, 
polluting enjoyment,” for where does μεασμός sig- 
nify ‘“‘polluting enjoyment?” It denotes defile- 
ment, stain, intercourse; connect it with the lust 
of concupiscence, 1 Thess. iv. 5; ef. Rom. i. 
24-27; Eph. iv. 18,19. Μιασμός also peculiar to 
Peter, and found only here in the New Testament. 
The description of these erroneous teachers re- 
minds us of the Balaamites and Nicolaitanes in 
Rey. ii. 14. 15. 20. 24, in whom we recognize a 
stem of the fourfold Gnosticism of the second cen- 
tury. The circumstance that Peter now passes 
from the Future ἔσονται, γ. 1, to the Present, 
must not be turned with de Wette into a reason 
for suspecting the genuineness of this Epistle. 
It may be accounted for in part by the Apostle’s 
prophetically exalted frame of mind, for his fiery 
language shows him throughout as a φερόμενος 
ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου (cf. ch. i. 21,) and in part by 
the fact that the beginnings of those melancholy 
phenomena were already stirring. A forger of 
that capacity, which the Epistle presupposes, 
would have consistently adhered to the position 
he had taken at ν. 1. 

And despise lordship.—The first mark of 
those false teachers was the denial of Christ, ch. 
ii. 1; the second, covetousness, v. 8: the third, 
unbridled sensuality, ch. ii. 10; the last, arrogant 
despising of lordship. Κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας. 
Jude 8 has κυριότητα ἀθετοῦσι, which goes further 
than karagp., and is its consequence. Κυριότητα 
should be taken in a general sense; every and 
any lordship, whatever shall be and shall be 
called Lord, all Divine and human authority. 
So Stier. The word must not be limited to the 
dignity of Christ’s lordship, because that had al- 
ready been referred to vy. 1. Dietlein applies it 
to Divine and superhuman powers, cf. Eph. i. 
21; Col. i. 16; ii. 18; Calvin, to earthly govern- 
ments; Huther understands it of the Divine 
Being, because all power and authority repose in 
It; while with reference to the book of Enoch 
he explains δόξαι of the halo of glory surrounding 
the Being of God. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. We must not believe that those false teachers 
passed theoretically from the denial of Christ’s 
redeeming grace and lordship to their moral 
libertinism and sensual enormities; the usual psy- 
chological course is rather that the heart is first 
corrupted, that the will is sold to sin, and that 
then the understanding becomes darkened. 

2. The account of the angels given in v. 4 falls 
in with what the Bible teaches concerning angels 
in general, and must not excite in us the suspi- 
cion that itis apocryphal. It is doubtless found- 
ed on special revelations. 

3. It is remarkable that anti-Christian phe- 
nomena, similar to those which threatened to 
overthrow the foundation of the Church in the 
beginning, spring up in our time. Stier refers 
more particularly to the rapidly spreading, fear- 
ful doctrines of the liberty of the flesh, and to 
the sins darkly skulking among the ungodly men 
of our time, especially to self-abuse. 

4. [The principal heresies which sprung up in 
the Apostolical age, and developed themselves be- 
fore the close of the first century, were: 

1. Stmonianism, or the opinions held by follow- 
ers of Simon Magus, who taught that the three 
Persons of the Trinity were only three revela- 
tions of the same Person, and that Simon was 
the great power which emanated from the invis- 
ible God. Neander thinks it possible that the 
words of which Simon made use are contained 
in the apocryphal writings of the Simonians; 
see Jerome’s Comm. on Matth., 24: ‘‘ Hyo sum ser- 
mo Det (ὁ λόγος), ego sum speciosus, ego paracletus.” 

2. Docetism, or the doctrine of the Docete, 
who denied the reality of the human body of 
Christ, of His crucifixion, resurrection and as- 
cent to heaven. 

8. The doctrine of the Micolaitans, who were 
noted for their licentiousnesses. 

4. Hbionism, or the heresy of the Hbionites, who 
denied the Divinity of Christ, and maintained 
that He was a mere man, descended from Joseph 
and Mary. 

5. The doctrine of the Cerinthians, who sepa- 
rated Jesus from Christ, and asserted that Christ 
descended from the Father into the person of Je- 
sus at His baptism, in the form of a dove, 
preached during His ministry and worked mir- 
acles, that at the end of His ministry Christ flew 
away from Jesus, and did not suffer death, and 
that only the man Jesus was crucified. 

These all ‘‘ denied the Lord that bought them.” — 
M. 
- [The following note of Wordsworth on 
evil angels embodies much valuable information. 
He says: This passage and the parallel in St. 
Jude 6, are two important texts on the present 
condition and future destiny of evil angels, and, con- 
sequently, of those persons who yield to their 
solicitations (cf. Matt. xxv. 41); these two texts 
declared: 

1. That some angels sinned, and, as a penalty 
for their sin, were cast out of their original hab- 
ttation; and, 

2. That they have been committed in custody 
to chains of darkness; and that they are now being 
kept in them, and they there endure some pun- 
ishment. 


80 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


8. That they there remain even to the end of 
the world, and are reserved there for the judgment 
of the great day. 

This appears also from the language of the 
devils themselves to Christ: ‘‘Art thou come to 
torment us before the season (καιροῦ) of judg- 
ment?’ See Matt. viii. 29; Lke. viii. 31. 

It is also evident from our Lord’s words, de- 
scribing the transactions of the great day. He 
there pre-announces that He will then say to 
them on the left hand, ‘‘Depart from Me, ye 
cursed, into everlasting fire, that hath been pre- 
pared for the devil and his angels.”’ They are, 
therefore, not yet cast into it. ᾿ 

It is also further apparent from the Apocalypse, 
revealing the casting of the devil into the lake of 

fire, as an event which has not taken place, but is 
yet future, Rev. xx. 10. 

4. Comparing also these texts with other por- 
tions of Holy Scripture (1 Pet. v. 8), where the 
deyil is compared to a roaring lion walking about, 
seeking whom he may devour; and (Rev. xx. 7), 
where Satan is described as loosed; and with the 
clear assertions of the Apostolic writings, de- 
scribing his present liberty, energy, and influ- 
ence, and designating him as ‘the prince of the 
power of the air” (ἀέρος, not αἰθέρος, Eph. ii. 2), 
and as ‘‘the god of this world” (2 Cor. iv. 4), 
we must conclude, that the chains of darkness, of 
which the Apostles St. Peter and St. Jude speak, 
and to which Satan and his associates are now 
confined, and in which they will be kept even εἰ} 
the day of judgment, are of such power as to re- 
strain them from ever recovering their place in 
the regions of light; but not such as to prevent 
them from exercising great power over those per- 
sons in the lower world who allow themselves ‘‘to 
be taken captive by them at their will.” See 
Wordsw. on Eph. ii. 2, and Rey. xx. 1-8. 

The book of Enoch in like manner describes the 
evil angels as chained under the earth, till the 
day of judgment, when they will be cast into the 
lake of fire. See there ch. v. 16; x. 6; xiv. 4; 
xxi. 6; xxii. 4. Huther, p. 205. Cf., also, the 
Catena here, p. 91, where we read, that ‘‘at the 
end of the world, Christ will condemn to severer 
punishment those evil angels whom He has al- 
ready shut up (in the abyss), and this He will do 
by casting them into everlasting fire.”’ And Bede 
says here: ‘‘The apostate angels are yet to be 
condemned to the penalties of the final judgment; 
for although they have already received the neth- 
er regions of the murky air as a prison house, 
which, when compared with the bright glories of 
heaven, where they once dwelt, may be called an 
inferno, yet there is a deeper gulf below, which 
awaits them.” 

Accordingly, Jerome (in Eph. vi.) delivers it 
as the opinion of all the doctors of the Church, 
that ‘the devils have now their abode in the 
space between heaven and earth.” And Augus- 
tine (de Civ., Dei, 8, 22) says, ‘‘that the devils 
dwell in this nether air, and being cast down 
from heaven for their sin, they are here pre-con- 
demned as in a prison, suitable to their sin.’ 
And it is asserted as an article of the Catholic 
faith by Irenwus (1, 2), that “Jesus Christ will 
come again hereafter, to raise all bodies, and to 
judge all men, and to cast the rebel angels into 
everlasting fire.” Justin Martyr, Origen, in 


Numb., cap. 22, Ireneeus (5, 26), and Eusebius 
(4, 17), were of opinion “that the devils never 
openly blasphemed God before the publication of 
the Gospel, because they did not know till then 
what their futwre punishment would be,” which 
opinion, whether true or no, shows that those an- 
cient writers did not imagine that the devil has, 
as yet, been cast into hell. See the discourse of 
Joseph Mede; Works, p. 25, Disc. 5.—M.] 

6. [The Gnostic teachers, says Wordsworth, 
despised and annulled κυριότητα, or lordship, in 
various ways: 

1. With regard to God the Father, the Κύριος 
Κυρίω, Lorp oF Lorps. Tillemont (2, pp. 17, 
23), ‘‘all who took the name of Gnostics distin- 
guished the Creator of the world from the God 
who reveals Himself by His Son; thus they made 
two gods,” i. e., they despised lordship by their 
dualism. 

2. With regard to the Lord Jesus Christ. The 
Ebionites, as we have seen above, regarded Jesus 
as a mere man; the Cerinthians separated Jesus 
from Christ, and denied the Passion and Resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ, by which He had ac- 
quired wniversal lordship over the Church and the 
world; they also invoked other mediators in 
place of Christ. They denied the Lord that 
bought them, and would not call Him Lord (Iren. 
ΠῚ: . 

3. vith regard to earthly rules, by affirming 
themselves to be free to do all things, and to be 
exempt from all civil restraints. See more in 
Wordsworth, from whom this note is taken in a 
condensed form.—M. } 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The history of the Divine judgments an ear- 
nest monitor for all times.—The great comfort of 
the doctrine of universal redemption.—It is not 
enough that we teach sound doctrine, we must 
also denounce false teachers.—The rise of false 
teachers among the people of God is a historical 
necessity, 1 Cor. xi. 19; Matt. vii. 15.—In how 
many different ways may Christ be denied ?— 
Which is the greatest gain? 

Curysostom:—‘‘ We admire Abraham, Lot and 
Moses, because they shone like bright stars in 
the darkness of night, because they were as roses 
among thorns, and as sheep among countless 
wolves.” 

The pious are distressed at the wickedness of 
the godless, 1. because it sullies the glory of God; 
2. because it shows that they are tyrannized by 
Satan; 8. because it conduces to their condem- 
nation. 

Grernarp: — ‘The pious are not preserved 
from every distress and affliction, but they are 
rescued from them, so that the help of God is so 
much the more manifest. Thus it fared with 
Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, David, Daniel and the 
three men in the furnace.” 

Starke:—Try the spirits whether they are of 
God, 1 Jno. iv. 1. Although they wear a rough 
garment (Zech, xiii. 4), ye shall know them by 
their fruits, and shall not take up with their party. 
—God has no pleasure in the destruction of the 
wicked, Ez. xxxiii. 11.—No wonder that the 
many take the broad way that leadeth to con- 
demnation, because they find init so many things 


CHAP. II. 10-22. 91 


which are agreeable to the flesh.—A false and 
godless teacher is apt to have more followers than 
a true and godly teacher, but his condemnation 
also will be so much the greater, because he 
draws many people into his own destruction, 
Acts y. 86. 37.—To delay is not to annul [Ger- 
man proverb: Aufgeschoben ist nicht aufgehoben. 
—M.]. God 18 long-suffering; He forbears 
long, but His punishment is terrible. O! man, 
may His long-suffering lead thee to repentance, 
Rom. ii. 4.—The devils are condemned, but their 
full judgment, without any hope of redemption, 
is yet future, Matt. viii. 29.—Let us walk in the 
light, if we would escape the darkness of hell, 1 
Jno. i. 7.—God has His elect and pious ones 
among the great multitude of the ungodly, whom 
He can and will miraculously preserve from uni- 
versal punishment, Mal. iii. 17.—No country is 
so fertile, no city so beautiful, glorious and rich, 
but that they may be laid waste and destroyed, 
if their sins multiply.—God has many ways of 
saying His people: one way is His preserving 
them from communion with evil, and His 
strengthening them spiritually to endure evil 
with patience, 2 Cor. i. 6.—Should not the sin- 
cere servants of God be pained and grieved, if 
their teaching, prayers and exhortations notwith- 
standing, it fares ill with their congregations? 
Woe to you, over whom they sigh! their sighs 


will rest heavily on you, Jer. xiii. 17.—The suf- 
ferings of believers are only temporal; their re- 
demption is at the door, 2 Cor. i. 9.10. If not 
before, a happy death is sure to bring perfect re- 
demption, Ps. xxiii. 17. 19.—As there are de- 
grees among believers, and as some excel others 
in spiritual gifts, and as they will be distin- 
guished in glory, so there is also a difference in 
point of sin and punishment among the ungodly. 
Some excel others in wickedness; so the punish- 
ment of some will excel that of others, Heb. x. 29. 

Lisco:—The enemies of the citizens of the 
kingdom. 

Roos:—If the kingdom of God cometh with 
power, the power of darkness is also astir. 
False teachers should stir up and incite the 
children of light diligently to search for the 
truth, and instantly and believingly to pray God 
for more enlightenment. 

[Ver. 4. Critict Sacr. Thes., 2,789, ‘‘“De malo- 
rum angelorum Ταρταρώσει.᾽᾽ 

Ver. 9. Souru, Three sermons, Works, vol. 6, 
pp. 121, 169, 209. 

1. Deliverance from temptation, the privilege 
of the righteous. 

2. Cause of the deliverance of the pious out 
of temptation. 

3. Deliverance from temptation, why to be re- 
puted a great mercy.—M. ] 


CHAPTER II. 104-22. 


ANALYSIS :—Further description of the false teachers; their radical corruptness and daring scoffing; their perilous state. ~ 


But these,’ as natural brute beasts‘ made® to be 


Spots they are and 


For when they speak great swelling words 
While they promise them 


For if after they have escaped the 


105 Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.1 
11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation 
12 against them before the Lord.? 

taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand ποῦ; and shall 
13 utterly perish? in their own corruption: And shall receive® the reward of unright- 

eousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot® in the day-time. 

blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings” while they feast with you;™ 
14 Having eyes full of adultery,” and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable 
15 souls: a heart they have exercised with covetous practices ;!* cursed children: Which 

have forsaken the’ right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the 
10. son of Bosor,” who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his ini- 

quity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s * voice forbade the madness of the prophet. 
17 These are wells without water, clouds’? that are carried with a tempest; to whom the 
18 mist of darkness is reserved for ever.” 

of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those 
19 that were clean™ escaped from them who live in error. 

liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is over- 
20 come, of the same” is he brought in bondage. 

pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord* and Saviour Jesus 

Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with 
21 them than the beginning. For it had been better™ for them not to have known the 
x way of righteousness, than, after they have known τέ, to turn from” the holy com- 


mandment delivered unto them. But* it is happened unto them according to the 
true proverb, The dog 7s turned to his own vomit again; and, The sow that was 
washed to her wallowing in the mire. 


82 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


Verse 10. [1 German: “The fool-hardy, haughty ones—tremble not to speak evil of glories.” 
Translate: “ Darers, self-willed,—they tremble not while railing at glories.” —M.] 
Verse 11. [2 German: “ Whereas angels, although greater in strength and might, do not bear their judgment of rail- 
ing (7. e., the sentence passed on their railing) which is given against them before (—by) the Lord.”—M.] 
mapa κυρίῳ cancelled by Lachmann and Tischendorf. z 
8 Cod. Sin. reads αὐτοὶ for οὗτοι.--Μ. 
4aAoya ¢#a=irrational animals.—M. 
δγεγεννημένα, Rec. Α3, Sin; γεγεννημένα, ΑἹ, Β. C., Theile.—M.] 
δαγνοοῦντες βλασφημοῦσιν, Cod. Sin.—.M. 
7 Rec., Sin., Ο3, α]., καταφθαρήσονται; καὶ φθαρήσονται, A.B), al., Theile, Alford. 
Translate: “ But these, as irrational animals, born naturally for capture and destruction, speaking evil 
of things which they know not, shall even perish in their corruption.” —M.]} 
Verse 13. i For κομιούμενοι, B., Cod. Sin., read adctxovmevor—M.] 


Verse 12. 


9 Cod. Mosq. for rpudyv, tpodyv.—M.] 
0ayamacs, A. B. (Mai), Vulg., al—M.] 

So Lachmann, as in Jude 12. Butitis more probable thata transcriber changed ἀπάταις πίο  γάπαις, 
than the reverse. amwatacsis sustained by A.C.G.K.,al. αὐτῶν also, which is critically estab- 
lished, favours only ἀπάταις and not ἀγάπαις, as has been pointed out by Gerhard and de Wette. 

ΠῚ Translate: “ Receiving, as they shall (Alf.), the reward of unrighteousness. Deeming revelling in the 
daytime their highest (so German) pleasure, they are full of (German) spots and disgrace, revelling in 
their deceits, while they feast with you.”—M.] 

Verse 14. 22 μοιχαλίας, A., Cod. Sin.—M.] 
3 ἀκαταπάστους, A.B. ἀκαταπαύστου, Cod. Colbert.—awaptiacrs, Cod. Sin.—M.] 
Ἡ πλεονεξίας, A. B. G, Sin., al., Lach., Tisch. [πλεονεξέαις, Rec., Theile, al.—M.] Huther cites ex- 
amples from the Classics for the constr. with Genitive. 

[5 Translate: “ Having eyes full of an adulteress, and that cannot be made to cease from sin; luring un- 

stable souls, having a heart practised in covetousness (Germ., selfishness), children of malediction.”—M. ] 
Verse 15. 16 τὴν before εὐθεῖαν omitted by [A. B. C. K. 1,.) Griesb. [ Alf.) al. 
17 For βοσόρ, Bewp, Bs Bewopa op, Sins omitted by B—M.] 
Verse 16. [18 Cod. Sin. omits ἐν before ἀνθρώπου.--Μ.} 
Verse 17. [9 καὶ ὁμίχλαι, A. B.C., Sin., al., Griesb., Tisch. AIf—M.] ὁμέχλαι from ὃ μίχω, mists, vapours. 

[νεφέλαι, Rec., L., Theile.—M. 

[29 Eis αἰῶ να omitted by B—M.] Lachm., Tischend.; it may have been inserted from Jude, {but found 
in Rec., A. C. Τὰς al; and retained in German version.—M. | 

Verse 18. 2 Rec. with A. B., al. reads ὁλέγω ς, Griesbach on good authority 6v7ws, which appears to be the more 


difficult reading. [Cod. Sin.,rovd ὄντως (Ἐ τοὺς OALyws) ἀποφεύγ.--Μ.) Lach., Tisch., al. pre- 
fer ἀποφεύγοντας, being on the point of escaping. 

(Translate: “Speaking great swelling words of vanity, they entice in lusts by licentiousness of the flesh 
those who were only just escaping (Germ., who were in truth escaping) from them who live in error.” 


—M. 
Verse 19. [22 Cod. δίῃ. omits καὶ after τού τ ῳ.--Μ. 
Verse 20. 


Verse 21. [3 κρίσσον for κρεῖττον, Cod. Sin. 


Beis Ta ὀπίσω ἀνακάμψαι ἀπὸ τῆς, 


] 
23 Insert ἡμῶν after κυρίου, Cod. Sin. A. C. L., al.—M.] 
κρεῖσσον, A.—M. 


Cod. Sin.] ets τὰ ὀπίσω ὑποστρέψαι ἀπό, Lach- 


mann. [ἐπί στρέψαι ἐκ τῆς, K.L., Theile, als ὑποστρέψαι &x τῆς, B.C., Alford, al—M.] 
Verse 22. [26 Omit ὃ έ after συμβέβηκεν, A. B., Cod. Sin—M.] Lachm., Tischend.; it seems to be a later addition. 


[Rec., Ὁ. K. L., Theile, al. insert it—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Vv. 10+. 11. Darers, self- willed, etc.— 
roAunrai.—Here begins a new section. Peter an- 
ticipates the future here, as well as in the first 
Epistle. Before his prophetic eye, the false 
teachers, who were afterwards to arise, appear 
as already present. This word, peculiar to Pe- 
ter, denotes bold, daring, audacious, or insolent 
men. [The word occurs only here, but is found 
in Joseph., B. III., 10, 12, and Thucid., 1., 70; in 
the latter passage, the Corinthians describe the 
Athenians as καὶ παρὰ δύναμιν τολμηταί, καὶ παρὰ 
γνώμην κινδυνευταί.----Μ. 

Aidaderc from αὐτός and ἀδέω, self-willed, pre- 
sumptuous persons, Tit. i. 7.--- ἰΒλασφημοῦντες, on 
the Participle, see Winer, pp. 857-872.—Adfac, 
not: glorious attributes of God, but angelic pow- 
ers, majesties, as is evident from the next verse and 
the Epistle of Jude. The reference is doubtless 
to the angels surrounding the throne of the Most 
High, cf. Eph. i. 21; Col. i. 16. 

[ Wordsworth :—What are δόξας or glories here? 
Doubtless the word δόξα is chosen, as the word 
κυριότις before, for its large and general import. 
It signifies,— ᾿ 

1. The μεγαλοπρεπὴς δόξα, the excellent glory, 
the Divine Shechina of the Godhead itself, i. 17. 

2. The glory of the Incarnate Word, Jno. i. 14; 
James ii. 1. 

8. The glory of the Holy Ghost. 

The false teachers blasphemed the glory of the 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, by disparaging the 
Creator and Redeemer, and by ascribing the work 


of the Divine Sanctifier to their own magical 
arts, and by calumniating the prophecies of Holy 
Scripture, given by His inspiration. 

4. They denied the resurrection of the flesh, and 
thus they derogated from the future glories of 
Christ, when He ‘will come in His glory (Matt. 
xxv. 31) and in the glory of His Father” (Matt. 
xvi. 27), and when ‘ He will be glorified in His 
saints” (2 Thess. i. 10); and in ‘their glorious 
bodies, fashioned to be like unto His glorious 
body,” Phil.iii. 21. See 1 Pet. i. 11, the only 
other passage in N. T., beside Jude 8, where δόξα 
is found in the Plural, as here. 

5. They spake evil of the glory of the holy an- 
gels. The Simonians represented them as the 
offspring of Simon Magus, who ‘was glorified 
by many as God.” See Catena here, p. 93, where 
it is truly said, ‘‘Peter here refers to the Simo- 
nians, who blended licentiousness with ungodli- 
ness,” and they traduced the holy angels as reb- 
els against God; See Iren., 1., 23, 1. And the 
successor of Simon Magus, Menander, called 
himself the Saviour, and affirmed that he could 
impart knowledge greater than that of the an- 
gels, Iren., L., 28, ὃ. ; 

6. They spake evil of earthly dignities, which 
are images and glories of God’s majesty (Rom. 
xiii. 1-3), and are even called gods (Ps. Ixxxii. 
6), as man himself is, in his‘ headship over wo- 
man, 1 Cor. xi. 7. 

7. They spake evil of the glories of the natural 
world (1 Cor. xv. 40), ascribing their creation 
to the operation of the Demiurge, hostile to the 
Supreme God.—M.] 


CHAP. II. 108-22. 


88 


————————————————h—w—v— i sesSsSsSsSsssSSSSsSsSSsSsse 


Dietlein applies it both to the Divine dignity 
of Christ and to the angels, and afterwards adds 
that even Satan is included among the glories 
that are evil spoken of. Stier, with most modern 
commentators, explains: ‘“‘The angels, although 
greater in strength and might, do not pass before 
the Lord a railing sentence on the majesties; they 


know and perhaps announce the judgment, but 


leave it in humility to the one Lord, aware that 
they, as well as the evil powers, are before His 
face; any other word of self-willed abuse ap- 
pears to them as a railing of those who are as 
yet spared the executive judgment, and really 
as a railing of the power and long-suffering 
of God, and therefore they abstain therefrom.” 
He agrees with Gerlach, who says: ‘Even 
if the Lord in His own presence charges them 
with the execution of the (preliminary) sen- 
tence on such high (evil) spirits, they do not ut- 
ter it in the form of self-willed railing.” But 
this interpretation is not without grave objec- 
tions. 1. Δόξαι are made to denote angelic and 
demoniac powers; since, according to this view, 
κατ᾽ αὐτῶν is referred to evil spirits, logical con- 
sistency requires that δόξας also be referred to 
them. But is it probable that these are called 
δόξαι, glories? This reminds one of Jucus a non 
lucendo. he railing is to consist in saying that 
they are only phantoms and superstitious ideas. 
This would be denial, not railing. 2. The refer- 
ence in v. 4, with which our passage is connected, 
being to evil angels, it would be very surprising 
to have in v. 11 an abrupt reference to good an- 
gels. The qualifying μείζονες applies much bet- 
ter to evil angels than to good ones, to whom it 
belongs as a matter of course, and its applica- 
tion to them would be rather weak, Moreover, 
ἄγγελοι here answer to the τολμηταί of the pre- 
ceding verse, and we have, therefore, to assume 
a similar disposition in these. 38. Φέρειν κρίσιν, v. 
11, is said to mean ‘‘to pass a sentence”; but it 
will be difficult to verify this rendering, although 
ἐπιφέρειν is used in the Epistle of Jude, 4. But 
would that be a railing judgment, a railing de- 
cision in the same sense, in which the false 
teachers pass it, if the good angels were to give 
a true, although a harsh judgment of the evil 
angels? For βλασφημεῖν means to defame one, to 
speak evil of one, contrary to the truth. δ. Οὐ 
φέρουσι is evidently related to οὐ τρέμουσι, and this 
relation would be entirely effaced if φέρειν were 
rendered to pass (judgment). These reasons 
could be overlooked only because it was thought 
necessary to expound this passage by the paral- 
lel passage in Jude. But this changes the true 
point of view. We must endeayour to explain 
our passage independently of that in Jude, and 
this leads to the result that the angels are evil 
angels, that φέρειν means to bear (Luther), and 
βλάσφημον κρίσιν--- βλασφημίας κρίσιν, ef. Jude 9, 
the judgment on their railing at God. The sense 
is as follows: ‘‘The wrath of God and the judg- 
ment which God passes on them in judgment of 
their railing, are unbearable to the evil angels, 
who have stronger shoulders than those false 
teachers, how much more then ought these to 
tremble at blaspheming the angelic majesties, cf. 
v. 4. Itis not known to us what those blas- 
phemings were. Itis evident from ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσι, 
v. 12, that the reference could not have been to 


terrestrial majesties, gcvernments and princes.— 
“Orov—cum, where, whereas, 1 Cor. iii. 3.—xar’ 
αὐτῶν---καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν.----ΠΠαρὰ κυρίῳ, before the Lord, 
in the face of the Lord, or from the Lord, with 
Him the Judge, cf. Acts xxvi. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 20; 
Winer, p. 413. De Wette’s remark that the sense 
in our passage is incoherent is superficial and 
unjust. 

Ver. 12. But these, as irrational animals, 
etc. — ἄλογα. --- Evil angels know and feel the 


-wrath of God; those false teachers are inferior 


to them, they are like animals that know nothing 
of a higher world. They are φυσικά, they belong 
altogether to the sphere of nature; it isas if they 
had no soul and still less a spirit. They are not 
led by reason, but only by their natural appe- 
tites, cf. Ps. xlix. 18. 21; cxli. 10. Some take 
φυσικά for gvovxdc.—[Bede here excellently re- 
marks that there is a resemblance between these 
false teachers and brute beasts, in that both are 
led by their fleshly appetites to fall into snares and 
destruction. Cf. Bava Mezia, quoted by Wet- 
stein, p. 706: Quidam vitulus, cum ad. mactandum 
adduceretur, R. Judam accessit, caputque in ejus 
gremium reponens flevit. Sed ille, abi, inguit, in 
hune finem creatus es.—M. 

Teyevvypéva.—This is their natural destination, 
for this purpose they are created, 7. ¢., to be 
caught by men, and to be killed for their use. 
Εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ φθορὰν, both to be taken passively, 
not actively.—‘‘ Peter may be supposed to allude 
to their falling as prisoners into the hands of the 
government, and their suffering punishment ac- 
cording to human laws.” Roos. ’Ev οἷς ἀγνοοῦσι 
βλασφημοῦντες, attraction for ἐν ἐκεήνοις ἃ ἀγνοοῦσι, 


like 3 Π ὝΠ, 2 Sam. xxiii. 9, 5 bhp, Is. viii. 


21, Winer, p. 651. Dietlein sees in ἐν τούτοις 
the sphere in which the railing takes place, cf. 1 
Pet. ii. 12, Therein lies the ground of their per- 
ishing, that which constitutes their guilt and dis- 
tinguishes them from brute beasts.— Ev τῇ φθορᾷ 
φθαρήσονται. Φθορά is inward, moral corruption 
and the spiritual death to which it leads, ef. ch. 
i. 4, The verb denotes outward destruction and 
future condemnation.—Their outward destruction 
here is still followed by retribution hereafter, 
the reward of their unrighteousness. 


Ver. 18. Receiving the reward of un- 
righteousness. — Kowotuevor, cf. 1 Pet. i. 9. 
The participial sentences which follow must not 
be connected with ἐπλανήθησαν, which does not 
contain the leading thought of this paragraph, 
but they belong to what precedes and explain the 
unrighteousness of those false teachers, which 
unrighteousness should be taken in a general 
sense (cf. Lke. xiii. 27; Rom. i. 18). Some of 
these participles are subordinate to the preced- 
ing ones, 6. g., εὐωχούμενοι, but most of them are 
coordinate. 


Deeming revelling in the daytime their 
highest pleasure.—'Hodovy ἡγούμενοι.--- They 
know no other pleasure than τρυφῆ, rendered by 
the Syriac, deliciex, voluptuousness, revelling, 
luxurious living.—T7pv ἐν ἡμέρᾳ. Oecumenius— 
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, Lke. xvi. 19, daily. Others—mo- 
mentary, transient well-living, as the day sup- 
plies it. Sode Wette. Or: spending the day, 
without thinking of the future. So Dietlein. 


84 


But all these renderings are contrary to gram- 
matical usage. Gerhard:—the time of this 
present life, which compared with eternity, is 
only as one day. The right sense follows from 
a comparison with 1 Thess. v. 7: ‘They that be 
drunken, are drunken in the night.”’ But these 
are so lost to all sense of shame, that they revel 
at noon-day. We may also cite the case of those 
heroes of drunkenness, who revel all day long, 
Is. vy. 22. [The Gnostics were renowned for such 
excesses. Jerome (adv. Lucif., p. 53) says, 
tunc Nicolaus DIU NOCTUQUE nuptias facens ob- 
scoenas, etc.; and Epiphanius, haer., 25, gives one 
of their maxims, ‘‘that a man had no hope of 
everlasting life, éav μὴ Kav ἑκάστην ἡμέραν 
λαγνεύη."" —M.]} 

They are full of spots and blemishes, 
revelling in their deceits, while they feast 
with γου.---Σπίλοι, in Jude 12 σπιλάδες, from 
σπιλόω, to stain, to soil. Both are identical in 
point of meaning, only the one is an adjective, 
the other a substantive. Stains, spots on gar- 
ments, or in the face, moral stain.—Moyoc—= 
blame, disgrace [disfigurements, causing shame. 
Alford.—M], peculiar to Peter. They are peo- 
ple full of spots and disgrace, who stain the body 
of Christ and themselves, Deut. xxxii. 5. The 
two words must not be connected with ἐντρυφῶν- 
τες, as de Wette maintains, but they stand by 
themselves.— Εντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὑτῶν, 
they revel in the gain of their deceits. The 
abstr. pro concreto. [A good sense may be ob- 
tained if the reading ἀγάπαις, cf. Jude 12, be re- 
tained. They called their gatherings ἀγάπαι, 
love-feasts, but they were occasions of revelry.— 
If ἀπάταις be retained, the remark of Windisch- 
mann (Vind. Petr., p. 45) will be found useful: 
«St. Peter would not call these heretical feasts by 
an honourable name (ἀγάπας), but styles them 
ἀπάτας, and describes their true character by add- 
ing the word évrpuddrrec.”” There is also a sim- 
ilar puranomasia or play on the words ἀπάτη and 
ἀγάπη in 2 Thess. 11. 10.—M.]—Xvvevwyobuevor 
from εὐωχία, ἔχω, 6x7 and ev, explained by Pol- 
lux, of public banquets. 

Ver. 14. Having eyes full of an adulter- 
ess, etc.—Dietlein has the curious notion that 
the allusion is to some female member of a 
house into which they had crept, who had already 
become the victim of their seduction. Μοιχαλίδος 
is more pregnant than the reading ὀφθαλμοὺς 
μεστοὺς μοιχαλίας, which evidently originated with 
later transcribers. Hornejus explains it well: 
‘“‘adulteresses dwell, as it were, in their eyes.” 
But this does not yet account for the Singular. 
Respect is probably had to the harlot in Prov. ii. 
16; vi. 24. ᾿Ακαταπαύστος connected with ὀφθαλμοὺς: 
full of ungratified lust of sin, insatiable in it. 
Another most pregnant term, peculiar to-Peter, 
ef. 1 Pet. iv. 1. Lustfulness is reflected in their 
eyes. 

Luring unstable souls—children of mal- 
ediction.—Aeriedlovrec from δέλεαρ, a bait to 
allure and attract with a bait, as does a fowler to 
catch birds, or a fisherman to catch fish, Jas. i. 
14. [Wordsworth: “ΔΑ word twice used in this 
Epistle, see v. 18; and a metaphor likely to 
occur to St. Peter, the fisherman of Galilee, to 
whom our Lord said, Matt, xvii. 27, βάλε ἄγκι- 
atpov, cast a hook.”’—M. ] 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


᾿Αστηρίκτους, ef. ch. iii. 16, a peculiar expres- 
sion, explained by Jerome thus: ‘*Souls which 
are not yet strong through the love of Christ,” 
and therefore easily turn hither and thither.— 
Γεγυμνασμέυην, practised, exercised, schooled.— 
Πλεονεξίαις, covetousness in its various kinds and 
forms, ef. 1 Pet. ii. 1; 2 Pet. ii. 8, especially also 
the lust of honour and enjoyment. Erasmus in- 
terprets it by rapinae.— Children of malediction, 
according to the Hebraism—persons deyeted to 
and worthy of the curse, cf. 2 Thes. ii. 3: Ps. 
cix. 17, ete. Caloy: ‘From the throat he passes 
to the eyes, the tongue, the heart, and the life.” 

Ver. 15. Having forsaken the right way, 
they are gone astray.—(erhard gives the fol- 
lowing connection: ‘He illustrates the covetous- 
ness of the false teachers by the example of 
Balaam, who once, by his love of lucre, suffered 
himself to be beguiled into cursing the people of 
Israel, cf. Jude 11. Another point of compari- 
son, which is not made prominent here, is the 
commingling of the Divine and the worldly, hy- 
pocrisy and allurement to harlotry, Numb. xxy. 
1. etc; xxxi. 16; Rev. ii. 14.—Ty εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν. 
This is the way of revealed truth, ch. ii. 2; of 
righteousness, ch. ii. 15. Τί is called sometimes 
the way of the Lord, Gen. xviii. 19; Judg. ii. 
22; Acts xviii. 25; the way of peace, Is. lix. 8; 
Rom. iii. 17, the way of wisdom, Prov. iv. 11, 
the way of life, Prov. x. 17; the way of salva- 
tion, Acts xvi. 17.—They were consequently per- 
sons who at one time had taken the right way, 
but had now backslidden.— Πλανᾶσθαι, to go 
astray, to err, take a wrong way, a figure de- 
noting the various by-roads into which they get, 
and the uncertainty which attends their aberra- 
tion, cf. Matt. xxiv. 5; Jno. vii. 12; 2 Tim. iii. 13. 

Following after the way of Balaam, etc. 
-Ἐξακολουθήσαντες, ch. i. 16; ii. 2; defines 
ἐπλανήθησαν .---- Τοῦ Βοσόρ, the son of Bosor. Hebrew 


Wd y is changed into o, because some 
grammarians maintain that in the Babylonian 


pronunciation the y was a kind of sibilant. Κ᾿ 


and 1) are often interchanged; so Gesenius and 


Ewald.—The wages of unrighteousness. — 
Gerhard: ‘*The reward which the Moabite am- 
bassadors carried in their hands, Numb. xxii. 7, 
are called wages of unrighteousness, because Ba- 
laam hoped to receive the money for an unjust 
and wicked work (the cursing of Israel ).” 
Ἢ γάπησεν, a mild term but suited to the circum- 
stances. The sacred narrative does not explicit- 
ly refer to the covetousness of Balaam, Numb. iv. 
22; he seemed inclined to shape his course 
wholly according to the will of God; but when 
the second embassy offered him greater gifts and 
honours, he induced the messengers to prolong 
their stay that he might once more inquire of 
the Lord whether he should go. συ. 19, Lis 
dominant lust is also exhibited in v. 34. [See 
Bp. Butler's Sermon ‘‘Upon the character of 
Balaam.”’—M. ] 

Ver. 16. But was rebuked for his pecu- 
liar iniquity.— E/eyéu δὲ ἔσχεν, he received not 
punishment, but a rebuking conviction, as indi- 
cated below. πΠαρανομίατεετἀδικίαᾳ. He clearly 
knew that it was the will of God that he should 


CHAP. II. 105-22. 


not curse the people: yet he resisted it.—’Idiac. 
Dietlein: ‘‘The perversion of the law peculiar to 
him, and the archetype of the same perversion 
in the false prophets.” Far-fetched.— Huther 
arbitrarily takes it in the sense of αὑτοῦ. It rather 
denotes that the transgression was peculiar in 
that he transgressed the will of God, Numb. xxii. 
12, while complying with His commandment, 
which gave him up to the counsel of his heart, 
ch. xxii. 20, 35. 

A dumb beast of burden, etce.—'Yrofiyior, 
a yoke-beast, a beast of burden, especially an 
ass, Matt. xxi. 5, ἄφωνον, in antithesis to the 
human voice. The antithesis between ἄφωνον and 
ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ φθεγξάμενον is designed to bring out 
the miraculous character of the incident.’— Exé- 
Avoe. De Wette says: ‘It was not the ass that 
forbade him, but the angel, Numb. xxii. 22. ete.” 
But this is not a discrepancy between our passage 
and the Mosaic account, for God made use of that 
dumb animal to prevent his going onward, while 
the angel suffered him afterwards to pass on to 
punishment, as de Wette himself observes. Ger- 
hard: ‘Balaam was able and ought to have 
seen, from so uncommon a miracle, that his way 
was perverse.” In the Epistle of Jude, v. 11, 
two additional examples are given, that of Cain 
and that of the company of Korah; the reward 
of Balaam being only briefly introduced.—Iapa- 
¢povia, folly, senselessness, madness. It is mad- 
ness indeed to fight against God, Ps. cix. 3; Acts 
y. 39. It is, says Luther, an unequal fight, if old 
pots will fight with rocks; for let it happen as it 
will, the pots will come to grief.—I]pogfrov.. The 
Mosaic account shows that revelations were made 
to him, Numb. xxii. 8. 18. 18.19; xxiii. 5. 16; 
xxiv. 17. 16; but also that his soul was open to 
influences of the kingdom of darkness, ch. xxiv. 
1. etc.; xxiii. 1. Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa 
and Theodoret infer from the latter passages 
that he was a prophet of the devil. Compare on 
the enigmatical character of Balaam, Kurtz, Ge- 
schichte des alten Bundes, 455 [and Butler’s Ser- 
mon on the Character of Balaam.—M. ] 

Ver.17. These are wells without water.— 
Two figures are now introduced to describe the 
influence of the false teachers upon others. Calov 
sees here a reference to Jer. ii. 18, where God 
compares Himself to a fountain of living waters, 
and the idols, so much run after by the many, to 
broken cisterns, thatcan hold no water. ‘They 
contain no water of wholesome wisdom and liy- 
ing consolation.” Oecumenius: ‘They have lost 
the water of life.” Augustine: ‘He calls them 
wells, because they had received the knowledge 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, without water, because 
they do not live agreeably to their knowledge.” 
Prov. x. 11 states the contrary. We are espe- 
cially reminded of Prov. xxi. 6, the original of 
which refers to scattering mist, to dispersing 
vanity, cf. ch. xiv. 24; Is. xxxv. 7. Umbreit 
suggests the well-known mirage. The thirsty 
traveller in the desert perceives a moving sheen 
which he takes for a stream or a lake, hastens to 
it, but, reaching it, is bitterly disappointed, for 
it all dissolves into empty vapour.— Huss: 
‘Where you find a well without water, you find 
dirt and mire. So these contain no water of in- 
flowing grace, but the mire of wickedness. No 
wonder, seeing that they have forsaken the 


88 


SS 


fountain of living water.” 
ing, but polluting wells. 

Clouds driven along by a whirlwind.— 
Νεφέλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμενοι. Dietlein incor- 
rectly renders fogs, alleging them to be clouds 
with the lateral idea of inward absence of clear- 
ness. [If the reading ὁμίχλαι be retained, render 
‘“‘mists.” See Appar. Crit. Comm. in Catena: οὐκ 
εἶσι, φησί, διαυγεῖς ὥσπερ οἱ ἄγιοι οἱ ὄντες νεφέλαι, ἀλλ᾽ 
ὀμίχλαι, τουτέστι, σκότους καὶ γνόφου μεστοί, ὑπὸ τοῦ 
πονηροῦ πνεύματος Ehavvouevoc.—M.] Λαΐίλαψ. Ger- 
hard produces the definition of Aristotle, who 
describes it as a violent wind turning upward 
and downward, cf. Mk. iv. 87; Lke. viii. 23; 
LXX. Job xxxyiii. 1; Jer. xxv. 82.—'EAavvduevar, 
used of ships driven to and fro by strong winds, 
Jas. iii. 4, and of the possessed driven by demons, 
Lke. viii. 29. The parallel passage in Jude 12 
reads: νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι (cf. Prov. xxv. 14) ὑπὸ 
ἀνέμων περιφερόμεναι, clouds which promise rain, 
but give none because they are chased away by 
the wind. Jude adds three other figures. Peter’s 
point of comparison is different; with him the 
emphasis rests on ἐλαύνεσθαι, which is designed 
to denote the inconsistency, the wavering and 
unquietness of the false teachers. Huther says 
that νεφέλαι denotes inward emptiness.—Huss : 
‘Clouds driven along by the wind produce a 
tempest and obscure the splendour of the sun, so 
in like manner those false teachers disturb the 
peace of souls and obscure the Sun of righteous- 
ness by the darkness of error.” 

‘For whom the blackness of darkness is 
reserved forever.—Oic ὁ ζόφος. De Wette ob- 
serves that ἀστέρες πλανῆται, Jude 12, is here left 
out and that οἷς ὁ ζόφος is inappropriately put 
down; most unfair, for Peter as well as Jude use 
the figure with reference to the false teachers. 
Dietlein rightly replies that ‘‘if Peter had found 
ἀστέρες πλανῆται, which would be even more 
telling in connection with his οἷς ὁ ζόφος than 
νεφέλαι, he would hardly have omitted those 
words.’ [Add that darkness is predicable of 
clouds driven by the wind as well as of wander- 
ing stars; the charge of inappropriateness is 
therefore unfounded.—M.] The relative οἷς ne- 
cessarily belongs to οὗτοι, not to ryyai or νεφέλαι, 
which would require aic. 

Blackness of darkness denotes extreme 
darkness, Matt. viii. 12; xxii. 18; xxv. 80. 

Reserved.—Reverts to the judgment of the 
angels, ch. ii. 4; ef. 1 Pet. i. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 7, 17. 
Stier: “That blackness of the judgment is re- 
served, spared, laid in store for them which is 
due to the darkness of their sin.” A dark life is 
justly punished with darkness, especially because 
of the seduction of so many souls.—Eic αἰῶνα, it 
is reserved for them down to the remotest periods 
in time to eternity, no matter what changes may 
take place with the earth and the world. 

Ver. 18. Speaking great swelling words 
of vanity, they entice, ete.—'Yrépoyxa from 
ὄγκος, bulk, exceeding bulk, swelling, figuratively, 
pride. Jude 16, has: τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑπέρ- 
ογκα. Luther: ‘*Proud words with nothing to 
back them,” hollow, vain phrases, bombast. 
Want of mind, want of power and emptiness are 
generally concealed under a hollow sound of 
words.—AgAeasovorv, see v. 14.—Bengel: ‘They 
pretend, as if they were lights of the Church, 


They are not hallow- 


86 


over-great things, but these wells, these clouds 
yield nothing. ’—’Ev ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκός. Gerhard: 
“These are the bait with which they attract 
others.’ — AceAye/aic in apposition with ἐπιθυμίαις. 
We may also translate with Huther: ‘‘They en- 
tice in the lusts of the flesh (ἡ, 6. insnared, in 
them, ruled by them) by licentiousness those, 
etc.” —"Ovrwe in truth, in sincerity and not only 
in the mask of hypocrisy [but ὀλίγωςΞξεεὀλίγου, ef. 
Appar. Crit. seems preferable.—M. ]— Azogvyév- 
tac suits ὀλίγως better than dvtwe.—Tod¢ ἐν πλάνῃ 
ἀναστρεφομένους dependent on ἀποφυγόντας. Huther: 
‘‘Those from whom the deceived persons had 
separated, non-christians, especially the heathen, 
who spend their life in error, ἐν πλάνῃ. 

Ver. 19. Promising them liberty, etc.— 
The subject of their great swelling speeches turns 
especially on liberty, that is, on the false liberty 
of living as they pleased, of indulging the flesh 
to the full. Grotius refers to certain Gnosties, 
whom Irenzus reports to have boasted that their 
soul had been liberated from all moral restraints, 
as if Christ had acquired for us the liberty to sin. 
[This was the doctrine of Simon Magus and his 
followers.—M.] A promise similar to Gen. iii. 5; 
cf. 1 Pet. ii. 16; they use liberty as a cloak of 
maliciousness, οἵ, Gal. ν. 18. 

Slaves of corruption, ch. i. 4; ii. 12, of 
those sins and yices which end in perdition.— 
Hrryra, by whomaman is permanently overcome, 
of him he has also become the slave, cf. 1 Sam. 
xvii. 9. He cites martial law; by whom a man 
is overcome in war, by him also is he enslaved. 
Those persons are brought by Satan into the 
slavery of sin and death, ef. Jno. viii. 34; 1 Jno. 
iii. 8; Rom. vi. 16. 

Ver. 20. For having escaped the pollu- 
tions of the world, ete.— The question is, 
which is the subject of this verse? Huther thinks 
that we must understand the false teachers, be- 
cause of the connection of this verse with the 
clause at the end of the preceding verse. Then 
the γάρ would refer back to the Sopa of v. 19. 
But the hypothetical form of this verse is against 
Huther, whereas the false teachers are intro- 
duced before as very decided persons, although 
it may be said that the reality is here expressed 
hypothetically, as is so often the case. But since 
ὄντως ἀποφυγόντας (vy. 18) belongs to the deceived, 
it is better to apply ἀποφυγόντες here with Bengel, 
and al. to the same persons. But then we have 
to supply before y. 20, the sentence: ‘*As the 
false teachers are themselves slaves of corrup- 
tion, so they make those whom they deceive 
slaves of corruption: for—.’’ Μιάσματα occurs 
here only in the New Testament, but μιασμός, V. 
10, stain, pollution. The reference to noxious 
particles floating in the air, called by physi- 
cians miasma, is out of the question here, for 
the word was not used in this sense at the time 
the Epistle was written, although, as Gerhard 
shows, those exhalations are an apt figure of 
sin.— Ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, ef. ch. i. 2. 8. 8; iii. 18. Here 
also it denotes vital knowledge.—'Ey7/axévrec. 
Gerhard: ‘This word is very emphatic; it de- 
scribes those who become entangled with snares 
and ropes; 2 Tim. ii. 4 it is used of those who 
are so entangled with the affairs of this life, that 
they are unable to please Him any longer whom 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


bp) to fall, Prov. xxviii. 18, from animals which 


fall, if they become entangled in snares and 
traps.”—‘Hrrévra, they return again into the 
slavery of sin and Satan, from which they had 
been delivered. 

Their last state is worse than the first, 
appears to have been a proverbial mode of speech, 
ef. Luke ix. 26;.Matt. xii. 45; xxvii. 64. Gro- 
tius cites a passage in LHermas, ch. iii. 2, which 
evidently has respect to this place: ‘Quidam 
tamen ex tis macuiaverunt se et projecti sunt de ge- 
nerejustorum et iterum redierunt ad statum pristinum, 
atque etiam deteriores quam prius evaserunt.’’—Ta 
πρῶτα is the condition anterior to their conver- 
sion; τὰ ἔσχατα, the state of entire captivity in 
sin and its corruption. The reason being, that 
as there is no standing still in the way of a se- 
cure sinner, the power of sin, and with it also the 
guilt and punishment, have become so much the 
greater. 

Ver. 21. For it had been better for them 
not to have known the way of righteous- 
ness.—T ap does not introduce the proof, but the 
explanation and confirmation of the preceding 
proposition. It were better for them if they had 
no such great guilt. Chrysostom: ‘“‘Do not sin 
after forgiveness, suffer thyself not to be wounded 
after thy healing, nor to be stained after grace. 
Think, O man, that guilt is greater after forgive- 
ness, that the renewed wound is more painful 
after healing, and that the stain is more trouble- 
some after grace. He therefore is ungrateful for 
forgiveness who sins again; he is unworthy of 
health who wounds himself anew, and he deserves 
not to be cleansed who stains himself after 
grace,’’—' Hv, Imperf. Ind. where we use the Con- 
junctive (cf. Winer, p. 327.) [Translate: ‘For 
it were better,” etc. —M. ]—'Odov δικαιοσύνης. Ger- 
hard: ‘The doctrine of Christ, of the Gospel, 
which points out the way how to acquire righ- 
teousness before God and eternal life.” Cf. ν. 2. 

Than having known it, to turn back, 
etc.—érvyvovow. Supply ἐστι or ἦν. a well known 
attraction,—émvorpéyac to turn to something and 
return, cf. Mark xiii. 16; Luke viii. 55; Acts iii. 
19. Huther considers ὑποστρέψαι the true read- 
ing; de Wette prefers the former. 

From the holy commandment.—’EproAje, 
that part of the fore-mentioned way of righteous- 
ness which comprises the doctrine of morals, and 
especially the cardinal commandment of love, 
John xiii. 84; xv. 12; 1 Johniii. 23. But it may 
also denote the whole of the doctrines of Christ, 
as a commandment that must be believed and 
practised, as we have it in John xii. 49; xy. 10. 
It is called holy on account of its origin, sub- 
stance and end, on account of its contrast to the 
pollutions of the world, and because it is the 
means of man’s holiness. 

Delivered to them, cf. Jude 3. 

Ver. 22. But itis happened to them that 
saying of the true proverb.—Their relapse 
into their old sinfulness is elucidated by two 
similes taken from the animal world, with re- 
ference to v. 12.—Xvu3éByxe δέ. The truth of that 
proverb has been fulfilled in them, ef. Matt. vii. 
6.—IlLapocuia (from οἶμος, way) a proverb, wisdom 
by the way, in the street.—Kiwr, the first pro- 


they stand pledged toserve. The LXX. use it for | verb with a slight variation is taken from Prov. 
> 


> 


CHAP II. 105-22. 


xxvi. 11. The Participle must not be changed 
into its finite verb, but δεικτικῶς should be taken 
as referring to a case really under observation, 
see Winer, p. 369. 

The dog, etc.—’Htéépayua from ἐξεράω, to throw 
out, to vomit.—Eic, supply ἐπιστρέψασα.----Κύλισμα, 
something rolled, and=«xvdwdf6pa, a place. for 
horses to roll in, the place of wallowing.—Bép- 
Bopoc, dirt, filth, mire. The s@ond proverb is 
not found among Solomon’s; it seems to be taken 
from popular tradition, although parallels are by 
no means wanting. Grotius produces several from 
Aratus and Philo. Similar passages are found 
in the Rabbinical writings. Augustine adds: 
_ See how terrible is that to which he compares 
them; for it is a terrible thing: a dog, ete.— 
What wilt thou be in the sight of God?” 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Luther and other evangelical teachers show 
that the prophecy of Peter met its fulfilment not 
only in the first age of the Church, but especially 
in the papacy. Gerhard, 6. g., mentions the 
written words of Ulric, bishop of Augsburg, 
about A.D. 800: ‘Popes, bishops and clergymen 
rush so passionately into voluptuousness, that 
they perpetrate the most horrible and unnatural 
vices.” Sixtus IV., says Gerhard, was a Sodom- 
ite, and granted leave to cardinals with whom he 
was on terms of intimacy, to indulge this vice 
during three summer-months. Paulus Jovinus 
affirms the same atrocity on the part of Leo X. 
Consult, for the fulfilment of the other marks of 
false teachers, Gerhard and Calov on the respec- 
tive passages. 

2. Augustine specifies four kinds of destruction 
or death. The first death is the death of the 
soul, if through sinning it becomes separated 
from God, who is the life of the soul, as the soul 
is the life of the body. The second death is that 
of the body, when it becomes separated from the 
soul. The third is the second death of the soul, 
when, in a state of separation from God and the 
body, it endures punishment. The fourth and 
last death is the death of the whole man, when 
the soul, without God, but with the body, will 
have to suffer eternal punishment. 

3. As Christ has His forerunners and types, so 
has antichrist his. To these belong Balaam in 
particular. <The souls of oracular personages, 
prophets, magicians and enchanters like Balaam 
resemble the strings of a lute, which vibrate in 
unison with kindred notes, and reécho them. 
The true prophets who were in sympathy with 
God, caught those notes of sympathy from above, 
but the false and devilish prophets caught them 
from beneath (Ex. vii. 11); those like Balaam 
caught them from both directions without being 
able to identify them until their heart inclined 
more to one or the other.” Richter, Hausbibel.— 
The history and character of Balaam affords us 
important insight into the nature of prophecy. 

4. Spiritual and carnal adultery, says Gerhard, 
go mostly hand-in-hand. The devil is a liar and 
an unclean spirit, John viii. 44; Luke xi. 24, and 
hence incites those whom he holds captive in his 
bonds to the propagation of lies and impure 
lusts. Those strong spirits of the post-Apostolic 

19 


37 


age, who began to stir in the time of Peter, and 
whose rise he foresaw, were wont to indulge in 
such swelling words: ‘Only a small standing 
pool can be polluted by unclean things that are 
poured into it, not so the ocean, which receives 
every thing, because it is conscious of its great- 
ness; so little men are overpowered by meats; 
but he that is an ocean in power (ἐξουσία) receives 
every thing without being polluted thereby.” So 
says Porphyry. See Neander. ‘We must,” 
(Clement of Alexandria reports them to have 
said) ‘fight lust in the enjoyment of lust, for 
it is no great thing to abstain from lust if it 
has not been tasted, but it is a great thing to in- 
dulge lust without being overcome by it.”’ Those 
false teachers have met their brethren in the re- 
storers of the flesh and the Latter Day Saints. 
What sophisms and powerful errors may not be 
brought forth in the last days of the Church! 

5. What we read here of extreme darkness, is 
by no means in conflict with those passages which 
speak of fiery flames and the lake of fire; for as 
intense heat and intense cold prevail in different 
localities here on earth at one and the same time, 
so the Scripture informs us that there are very 
different localities in the wide extent of the lower 
world. 

6. If those who have truly escaped from the 
pollutions of the world, may again be entangled 
therein, then Holy Scripture teaches that re- 
lapsing from the state of grace is possible,—a 
doctrine denied by the Calvinistic School on un- 
tenable grounds. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The great folly of preferring momentary plea- 
sure to eternal happiness. Salvation may be 
gained or lost in one moment of time.—‘Sin is 
fruitful: it does not end where it begins; the sin 
that succeeds another is usually the punishment 
of that which precedes it, and that which pre- 
cedes, mostly the cause of that which follows.” 
Gerhard.—An unfortified mind opens the gate 
and the door to false teachers.—Stability of mind 
is a precious jewel.—Wicked men who fan the 
sparks of carnal lust in others, are able by means 
of such inflaming to do with them what they 
please.—‘‘As soon as the heart is removed from 
trust in God, from glorying in the knowledge of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, so soon all seductions have 
again free entrance into the same. At first men 
resist for awhile, but by and by their courage 
flags and they are overcome at last.” Rieger.— 
The most wretched slavery is the service of sin, 
for sin is the greatest tyrant.—‘‘Those who lead 
a disgraceful and a vicious life, are threatened 
not simply with transient punishment in fire.” 
Augustine.—The great danger of relapse: 1. The 
greater the measure of grace received, the greater 
the punishment, Heb. vi. 4-6; x. 26.27. 2. Con- 
version is increasingly difficult in the case of 
those who have fallen from grace, just as a 
disease is more difficult to cure on its return 
than at its first occurrence.—How does relapse 
take place? It is usually not sudden, but gra- 
dual. Remissness in watching and prayer, in- 
difference to the punishment of the Spirit are its 
precursors. The company of pious Christians is 


° 


38 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


exchanged for that of vain worldlings; the read- 
ing of entertaining books is substituted for the 
study of the wholesome word of God, and Chris- 
tian liberty is enlarged to its utmost limits. If, 
to crown the whole, deceivers step in, the relapse 
is completed.—A relapsed person is more danger- 
ous to others, ‘‘because knowing Christianity, 
he is able to hurt it more seriously by cunning 
than another who never knew it.” Roos. 
Starke :—The deceits of sin and Satan degrade 
many men not only to the level of brutes, but in 
many points below it. O hateful monsters, ye 
fare worse than dumb brutes, Is. i. 3.—Ver. 18. 
Excellent portraiture of Romish false teachers! 
but the evangelical Church, alas, is not free from 
such shameful blemishes. QO Lord, heal this 
great hurt, Ps. xii. 2.—The wicked, as he seeks 
rest in sin of every kind, seeks it also in debauch- 
ery, but does not find it, although he fancies to find 
it forthwith, fresh lusts evermore disquiet him 
again and urge him to sin, so that he is a verita- 
ble slave of sin.—Every human heart is sinful, 
but if it is thoroughly trained and practised in 
sin, it is altogether imbedded in corruption and 
nigh to the curse. O accursed man, tremble and 
pray without ceasing: “Ὁ God, create in mea 
pure heart,” and exercise thyself hereafter in god- 
liness, 1 Tim.iv.7. He that is devoted to covet- 
ousness, has already departed from the right 
way, 1 Tim. vi. 10; Lke. xii. 15.—Wilt thou and 
canst thou compel God to prevent thy wickedness 
by miracles? If thou wilt not suffer His word 
to deter thee from evil, He will allow it, but, 
look, what He will do, Lke. xvi. 30. 31.—Many 
words, little power! Falsehood-mongers are de- 
ceivers. The reverse is equally true. Happy 


the pattern of Paul, 2 Cor. ii. 17; iv. 2—None 
wants to be a servant, none a slave of* the fiend, 
but all sinners are the slaves of their lusts, of 
their belly, of their flesh and of the worst enemy 
of their temporal and eternal happiness, Jno. viii. 
34.—Mark the deceit of the devil and of sin; 
they show thee not fire and sword, the gallows 
and the wheel, but portray only that which 
pleases and attitacts; yet if thou sufferest thy- 
self to be entangled and caught, all those things 
will follow, anddamnation at the last, Heb. iii. 13. 
Fearful to hear, but true; relapses are danger- 
ous and finally incurable, Heb. x. 26. 27.—Let 
him that standeth take heed lest he fall, 1 Cor. 
x. 12.—O man, thou makest so much of outward 
cleanliness in dress, in ornament and beautify- 
ing, but in the natural state of thy soul thou art 
like unclean dogs and sows. Remember that in 
proportion as thy soul is more noble than thy 
body, so shouldest thou the rather provide for her 
cleansing and beautifying. 

Lisco:—The fearful relapse into sin.—The 
fearful end of the enemies of the Kingdom. 

[Ver. 12. Dwiaur: Punishment of the Wicked, 
its Nature. Theol. V., 470. 

Ver. δ. Liautrroot: The 
Works, VII., 78. 

Ver. 19. Buarn, H.: On the Slavery of Vice. 
Serm. IV., 201. ; 

Cottyer, W. B.: Christianity compared with 
Deism. On Scripture Comparison. 

Ver. 20. SMatripaz, ΒΡ.: The Danger of Re- 
lapsing. Sermons, 547. 

Vy. 20. 21. ΞΊΜΕΟΝ, C.: Apostates in a Worse 
State than Ever. Works, XX., 333. 

THoxtuck, A.: Light from the Cross, p. 41. 


Way of Balaam. 


the cities and countries which have teachers after | —M.] 


CHAPTER III. 1-9. 
ANALYsIS:—Reference to the long-predicted rise of scoffers, and refutation of their unbelief. 


This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your 
pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which 
were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us‘ the apostles 
of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days’ 
scoffers,? walking after‘ their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his com- 
ing? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were® from the 
beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word 
of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the 
water :* Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 
But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word? are kept in storé, 
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, 
beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day 7s with ® the Lord as a thousand 
years, and a thousand years as one day.’ The” Lord is not slack concerning his prom- 
ise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward," not willing that 
any should perish, but that all should come to repeatance. 


© OID or em co ΕΘ "Μι 


CHAPTER III. 1-9. 
ee ee δ 


39 


Verse 1. [German: “This Epistle, beloved, I now write you as the second in order to rouse in it [as also in the former] 
your pure mind by way of remembrance”.—M.] 


A forger would certainly 


have used ἡ μῶ ν, but a real Apostle may content himself with modestly saying ὑ μ ὦ v.—M. 


[ἐσχάτον Rec.K.L. ἐσχάτων. A.B. C*., Cod. Sin., 


[Translate with German: “by His word.” With this single, but important variation, the E. V. cannot be 


improved here.] 
Verse 8. fs παρὰ κυρίου. Cod. Sin.—M.] 


3 German: But let not this one thing be hidden to you, beloved, that one day is before the Lord as a thou- 


sand years, etc. 


Translate: But let this one thing not escape you, (with allusion to v. 5), beloved, that one day, etc.—M.] 
Verse 9. [19 Insert ὁ before κύριος, Rec., K. L., al.; omit A. B. C., Cod. Sin.] Lachm. and Tischendorf. 


11 Lachmann reads δι᾽ ὑμᾶς, for your, 
εἰς ὑμᾶς. [Cod. Sin. ὃ ε᾿ ὑμᾶς.---Μ.] 


the believers’, sake; but Tischend., with many authorities gives 


(German: The Lord delayeth not with the promise, as some consider it a delay, but He hath patience with 
us, not willing that some should perish, but that all should turn to repentance. 
Translate: The Lord is not tardy concerning His promise, as some account tardiness, but He is longsuf- 


fering towards us, etc. Alford.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 1. This Epistle now, beloved, the 
second.—The flow of fiery, prophetical diction 
beginning with ch. i. 16, comes here to a point 
of rest. Peter takes up ch. i. 15.—’Hody in the 
acceptation of already, gives no good sense. [But 
this is doubtful; we have only to render ‘this 
Epistle, already a second” and the idea is plain 
that this Epistle was written very soon after the 
former ; this is the opinion of Bengel, ‘“priorem 
paullo ante scripserat ;’’ cf. the same author on ch. 
1. 12, ‘‘alteram hance epistolam scribit brevi inter- 
vallo post eR ἘΝῚ ἢ Connect ἤδη with γράφω 
not with δευτέραν. Now inthe near prospect of 
death and in the presence of scoffers denying the 
coming of Christ, write unto you. This passage 
defines more explicitly the somewhat indefinite 
statement of ch. 1. 15; but this does not there- 
fore exclude a reference to the Gospel according 
to St. Mark. 

In both which I rouse, οἰο.--- Ἔν αἷς, the 
pronoun is in the Plural, because δύο is implied 
in δευτέραν, Winer, p. 154.—Aveyeipw, it seems, 
must be taken as a Conjunctive for iva ἐν αὐταῖς. 
On the sense see ch. i. 18.--- Ὑμῶν may be 
connected with ὑπομνήσει or διάνοιαν; the latter 
seems preferable.— Εἰλικρενῆ, see Phil. i. 10 from 
ein (sun-light) and κρίνω, something attentively 
examined in the light of the sun and found genu- 
ine, hence pure, clear, unmixed, [unadulterated. 
—M.] Διάνοια, 1 Pet. i. 13, “this pure mind is 
at once opposed to errors in doctrine and to ex- 
cuses for the practice of vices. A man of a pure 
mind believes and loves the truth, and grows 
holy in the truth.” Roos. Such a mind can only 
be roused in the case of those, who are not in the 
truth, cf. Jno. xviii. 837; iii. 21; 1 Jno. i. 6. A 
principal means thereto is the remembrance of 


the revelations of God, deposited in the writings 
of the Prophets and Apostles. 

Ver 2. That ye should remember the 
words, etc.—Here, as in 1 Pet. i. 10-12 and 2 
Pet. i. 19, great weight is attached to the word 
of prophecy, which is brought into most intimate 
connection with the Apostolical doctrines.— 
᾿Αγίων προφητῶν, see ch. 1. 21.—Evtodje, ch. ii. 

.—Hyév in apposition with ἀποστόλων as in 
Acts x. 41. The author here repeatedly describes 
himself (as in ch. i. 1) as an Apostle, just as he 
describes himself in ch. iii. 1 as the Author of 
the first Epistle.—Mvryo@jva, further definition 
of ἐν ὑπομνῆσει. The Infinite of intention or of 
further definition, Winer p. 841.---Τοῦ κυρίου καὶ 
σωτῆρος; de Wette makes these words to be goy- 
erned by the Infinitive and gives the ungrammati- 
cal rendering “07 our Apostles.’ But it is more 
natural to connect τοῦ κυρίου with ἐντολῆς. This 
has a double Genitive; cf. Winer, pt. iii. 80. 
The one of these Genitives relates to the an- 
nouncement, the other to the origin of the doc- 
trine.—In the parallel passage, Jude 17, the 
reference to the Prophets is omitted.—De Wette’s 
interpretation being manifestly incorrect, we 
need not stop to refute his inference that the 
non-apostolical author here betrays himself and 
acts out of his character. 

Ver. ὃ. Knowing this first that in the 
last of the days scoffers shall come.—2 
Tim. iii. 1; cf. 1 Tim.iv. 1. They are to consider 
it as a principal point of the prophetical and 
apostolical word that—yvdcxovrec. Here we 
should expect the Accusative, governed by 
μνησθῆναι. Such, probably intentional, ana- 
colutha are of frequent occurrence. Conceptions , 
expressed by the casus recti of Participles, are 
exhibited with greater prominence, Winer, p. 
594; cf. Acts xv, 28; Eph. iv. 2; iii. 17. 


40 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


Shall come, cf. ch. ii. 1; Mitt. xxiv. 5. 11. 
24; vii. 15. 22; 1 Jno. iv. 1. The parallel pas- 
sage Jude 18 is almost identical ; ὅτε ἐν ἐσχάτῳ 
χρόνῳ ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται, κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας 
πορευόμενοι, with the addition τῶν ἀσεβειῶν .---- Ἐπ’ 
ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν. The Adjective Neuter is 
often used emphatically instead of the Substan- 
tive. Winer, p. 248. At the end of these present 
days of the world. [But as ἐσχατών is the best 
supported reading, cf. App. Crit., it is better to 
translate ‘‘in the last of the days’; there is per- 
haps no difference in meaning, but the Plural 
seems to extend the expression over a wider 
space, so Alford; Wordsworth: ‘From this refer- 
ence, it appears that St. Jude wrote his Epistle 
after the present Epistle, and that he owned this 
Epistle to be the work of an Apostle, and therefore 
an authentic writing; and if authentic, then it 
must be also genuine, for it asserts itself to be 
written by St. Peter, ch. i. 1 and i. 17, where the 
writer describes himself as present at the trans- 
figuration, at which only three Apostles were 
present, viz.: Peter, James and John.”—M.]— 
"Euraixrac (from ἐμπαίζω to play, sport in or on) 
scoffers, deceivers; cf. LXX. in Is. iii. 4, for 


ον" » petulantize, petulantes, people that 


jest about things of the greatest importance. 
Here we encounter another class of adversaries 
of Christ, different from the false prophets and 
teachers described in the second chapter. The 
two classes have this in common, that they are 
Epicurean and Antinomian in mind, ef. v. 17; 
ch. ii. 18. 19. The appearance of such men is 
predicted Acts xx. 29; 1 Tim. iv. 1; 2 Tim. iii. 
2, etc. Ifthe reading ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ is retained, 
it is necessary to use a mark of distinction after 
the latter word, rendering: ‘they shall come in 
the spirit of scoffing, as scoffers, walking, etc.” 
[‘*They will not only de scoffers, but they will 
come ἐπ scoffing, like those of whom the Psalmist 
says, that their delight is in cursing, and that 
they clothe themselves with it, as it were, with a 
raiment (Ps. cix. 16.17); and the contrast is 
striking to the Divine words εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω, 
Gen. xxii. 17, cf. Eph. i. 8, ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν 
πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ, and Clem. Rom. i. 24.” Words- 
worth.—M. ] 


Walking after their own lusts.—They no 
longer appear in sheep’s clothing, but exhibit 
their wolf-nature.—Kara τὰς ἰδίας αὑτων. ᾿Ιδίας 
brings out the self-will and opposition of these 
men to the law of God.—Emfuuiac πορευόμεναι. 
Bengel: ‘*This is the origin of error, the root of 
libertinism.”” Luther; ‘These are our Epicu- 
reans and Sadducees, who believe neither one 
thing nor the other, who live as they think best 
and walk after their own lusts, considering per- 
mitted whatever suits their pleasure: examples 
of such are met on every hand.”—TIlopevduevor, 
see 1 Peter iv. 3: 

Ver. 4. Where is the promise of His 
coming ?—Similar to the daring words of the 
scoffers in Mal. ii. 17: ‘*Where is the God of 
judgment?” The same form of speech occurs in 
Luke viii. 25; Ps. xlii. 4; lxxix. 10. Where is 
it? ¢. g., Where is its fulfilment? It is nowhere 
to be found. 

The promise.—They use the language of 


believers, to whom the coming of their Lord is 
the most cherished desire, cf. Luke xxi. 28. 

Of His coming.—rapovciac. Used here ina 
more special sense than in ch. i. 16, of the visible 
coming of Christ to the judgment of the wicked 
and to the consummation of His Kingdom, Matt. 
xxiv. 8. 27. 37; 1 Thess. ii. 19; iii. 18; 2 Peter 
ili. 12.—Airod, they do not take His name on 
their lips, so much do they disdain it. [Poly- 
carp, 6. 7: ‘Whosoever does not confess the suf- 
fering of the cross, is of the devil; and whoso- 
ever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own 
lusts, and says that there is neither resurrection 
nor a judgment,—he is the first-born of Satan.” — 
M 


For since the fathers fell asleep.— Ao’ ἧς 
yap scil. ἡμέρας. De Wette is wrong in saying: 
‘‘The author appears to assume these scoffers as 
present and that prediction as fulfilled.” No; 
this appearance springs solely from critical pre- 
judices. Peter puts himself into the time of the 
fulfilment of that prediction, when the first ge- 
neration of believers had already fallen asleep; 
most of them had expected the visible coming of 
the Lord as immediately connected with the de- 
struction of Jerusalem; but after that catastrophe 
had taken place without the expected visible 
coming of the Lord, the scoffers took occasion to 
deny the coming of the Lord altogether. This 
Peter foresees in the Spirit. The word fathers 
denotes therefore not the Patriar¢hs, the ances- 
tors of the Jewish people, nor (as Dietlein main- 
tains) any preceding generation standing to that 
immediately succeeding it in the relation of fa- 
thers, but the fathers of the second generation of 
Christians. Otherwise the sentence would be pleo- 
nastic, because am’ ἀρχῆς follows after.—Exovyuj- 
θησαν like ἐπαγγελία, to be understood in a mock- 
ing sense, as imitating the language of believers. 

All things remain thus from the begin- 
ning of the creation.—Avaéver, they remain 
without intermission, the whole world remains 
according to its old constitution, in the consist- 
ence which it has once for all, it remains through 
all mutations. Huther arbitrarily inserts the 
idea, ‘‘since the fathers . . . . hath come to pass; 
all things continue thus . . . .”—Others supply 
Oc ἦν, as it was from the beginning of creation, 
which is equally arbitrary. The construction is 
pregnant: ‘‘All things from the time of our fa- 
thers remain in a general way, as they are; yea, 
from the beginning of creation all things remain 
essentially the same.”’ Bengel gives to οὕτω a 
pregnant force: ‘‘All things remain thus as they 
remain from the beginning of the world.” [Sic 
permanent, ut permanent.”—M.]_ Dietlein makes 
these erring spirits speculative philosophers who 
advance the proposition that ‘‘the history of 
creation is endless; the destiny of the human 
race is not one that actually occurs at a given 
time and terminates the course of the world, but 
it fulfils itself in an untemporal (unzeitlich) man- 
ner (it is immanent, to use the language of modern 
speculation); and this they infer from the cir- 
cumstance, that one generation passes away after 
another, and is dispatched as they suppose, and 
that therefore it cannot be otherwise with all 
succeeding generations.” There is no reason to 
assume such a system in the case of these trifling 
Epicureans, and ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς is absolutely in conflict 


CHAP. III. 1-9. 


with such an assumption.—Luther explains the 
inference of the false teachers as follows: ‘The 
world has stood so long, and has always remained 
thus; should it now at last become otherwise ?” 
We must however add in the sense of those scof- 
fers: The coming of Christ and the destruction 
of the world were long since predicted as con- 
nected with the destruction of Jerusalem without 
coming to pass; where then is now the word of 
the Scripture ὃ 

Ver. 5. Forit is hidden to them, because 
they thus will it.—Refutation of the assertion 
that all things remain in the same condition by 
the fact of the flood.—Tovro belongs to ὅτι, not to 
θέλοντας, as in ch. iii. 8, and θέλειν denotes not 
«to choose a view” (eine Ansicht belieben, as Diet- 
lein maintains), for this meaning cannot be veri- 
fied. Huther, indeed, cites a passage from 
Herodotus, but it is isolated and proves nothing 
for the New Testament. It denotes ‘‘a guilty 
ignorance,” as Luther translates; they are wil- 
fully ignorant of it; they are wilfully blind to 
the consideration of the flood. Winer, p. 489, 
note [says: In 2 Peter iii. 5, λανθάνει τοῦτο θέ- 
Aovrac I prefer the rendering: Jatet eos hoe (what 
follows) volentes, i. e., volentes ignorant, to the 
other: latet eos (what follows) hoc (what precedes) 
volentes, i. 6., contendentes. The former brings 
out more clearly the guilt of the mockers. Nei- 
ther in Col. ii. 18, is θέλων to be taken as an ad- 
verb.—M. ] 

That the heavens and an earth were 
from of old, etc.—Oiparoi, as usual in the Plu- 


rallike OD, cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2.—Exra2a, 


from of old, from the first origin of all things.— 
Ἦσαν, de Wette, Huther, al., refer it primarily to 
ovpavoi, but then also to γῆ συνεστῶσα. This might 
pass grammatically (Winer, p. 868), but how are 
we to conceive the heavens to consist out of and 
through water? De Wette, indeed, observes that 
the conception that the heavens (the firmament) 
were made out of water, may be justified by Gen. 
i. 6, but he is conscious of the unsatisfactoriness 
of this exposition, since he proposes to refer ἐκ 
to the earth and διά to the heavens (through the 
water). This is very forced, and in no event ap- 
plicable to the starry heavens, which are of 
course included in οὐρανοί. According to the re- 


presentation of the Bible, the firmament ( y PD) 


consists not out of water, but forms a wall of 
partition between the waters above and the wa- 
ters below, Gen. i. 7. 8.—The earth originated 
out of water, out of the dark matter in which it 
was comprehended, and through water, ἡ. ¢., (as 
Winer, p. 438, explains it) through the agency of 
water, which partly descended into the lower 
parts of the earth, and partly formed the clouds 
in thesky. The earth, moreover, manifoldly re- 
ceived its diversified, form through the water, 
consists in a great measure in water and this ele- 
ment, as already noticed by Oecumenius, holds 
it together and cements it.—The Indo-#gyptian 
cosmogonies, to which de Wette refers, and which 
are said to contain an account of a chemical ori- 
gin of the world out of water, are altogether ir- 
relevant. [Bengel: ‘‘Gradatio, aqua terram texer- 
at: EX aquis terra emersit: et aqua INSERVIIT, wt 
terra consisteret, sicut Creator eam formavit et collo- 


41 


cavit. Aqua ceteroqgui levior est, et terra inferiores 
partes petit, usque eo, ut omnis agua, in linea recta 
a superficie ad centrum orbis hujus sive rotundi sys- 
tematis, terram semper sub se habeat: sed in ipsa su- 
perficie terra passim supra aguas plus minusve emi- 
net; et vel hune aqua locum quasi invita, et potentis- 
simo jussu divino coacta, terre concessit et reliquit. 
Ex. xx. 4; Ps. xxiv. 2; civ. 5-8; cxxxvi. 6: Job 
Xxxvili. 10.”,—The assertion that the earth arose 
out of the water is opposed to the dogma of Simon 
Magus, that it was engendered from fire. Words- 
vice referring to Hippolyt., Refut. haer, p. 165.— 
By the word of God may refer both to the 
heavens and to the earth, cf. Gen. i. 6.9. But 
we may also join these words more intimately 
with συνεστῶσα, which appears to be preferable, 
as it gives greater prominence to the thought, 
that it does not consist a moment longer than 
God permits. Bengel: ‘By the word of God is 
defined the duration of all things, so that it can- 
not be longer or shorter.” [The reference here 
is to the creative energy of the Divine Logos. 
The Jewish readers of Peter’s Epistle were fami- 
liar with that doctrine, which was opposed to the 
error of the Gnostics who held that the universe 
was made by angels or by the demiurge opposed 
to the supreme God. Ireneus I., 19, declares, 
that the world was not made by angels, nor by 
any powers separated from God, but by His 
Word, 7. e., Christ. Ps. xxxii.6; Johni.3. The 
same author says, II., 2: ‘‘All things which God 
made, He made by the indefatigable Word, even 
as John the disciple of the Lord declares con- 
cerning Him, John i. 3.”—M. ] 

Ver. 6. Whereby the world that then 
was, being overflowed with water, pe- 
rished.—Av’ ὧν cannot possibly refer to ὕδατος 
(Huther), more especially because idarz follows 
after ; nor can it signify: guapropter, nor ‘through 
which circumstances it also came to pass that 
....” (Dietlein), still less ‘“‘yet” (dennoch— 
Luther). It evidently belongs to οὐρανοὶ καὶ γῆ. 
It was just the heavens and the earth which be- 
came the instruments of destruction of the then 
κόσμος, i. e., for the then existing world of human 
beings and animals. Peter uses κόσμος in pre- 
cisely the same sense, ch. ii. 5.. The heavens 
became such an instrument of destruction, when 
their windows were opened and it rained as never 
before since the creation of the world, Gen. vii. 
11. The earth which had been founded upon the 
waters and risen out of the water, Ps. xxiv. 2, in 
obedience to the command of God was compelled 
to pour forth its treasures of water, Gen. viii. 2, 
in order to destroy man and beast. Who would 
have believed this before the flood came? Who 
would have supposed that the heavens and earth 
did contain within them such powers of destruc- 
tion, seeing that they consisted so long before? 
Every attempt of taking κόσμος in another sense, 
understanding it of the whole world, of the uni- 
verse (Huther, al.), or more particularly of the 
earth (Caloy), fails to bring out the full force of 
ἀπώλετο, Which was then to be circumscribed to 
such an extent as to denote a great mutation, 
which conflicts with grammatical usage. But 
here we must take a retrospective view of ἔκπαλαι, 
y. 5, in order to understand the full refutation 
of the antagonistic proposition. 1. Ἔκπαλαι should 


42 


be joined not only with οὐρανοί, but also with γῆ. 
The heavens and the earth even in the time of Noah 
had consisted from of old, upwards of 1600 years; 
from this circumstance the men of that time 
might have drawn the inference that all things 
in the world of man would ever remain, even as 
they were; but how fallacious was that inference! 
2. With this is connected the thought, that consid- 
ering that the earth came into existence and does 
consist by the Word of God, the people of that 
time might surely have been able to understand 
that it could be destroyed by the self-same Word. 
3. The event has shown, that the world of man 
was destroyed just by the heavens and the earth, 
which to them had the appearance of an impe- 
rishable existence. 4. Now the heavens and the 
earth, as intimated in vy. 7, underwent also a 
change in that catastrophe. That flood which 
covered the whole earth would be inexplicable 
without an extraordinary influence exerted by 
God upon the heavens and the earth, whereby 
their condition was changed. Gen. ix. 11, cf. x. 
25, where reference is made to an extraordinary 
terrestrial catastrophe, expressly testify that the 
earth was destroyed by the flood, and that it pre- 
sented in many respects an appearance very dif- 
ferent from that which it had before that mighty 
revolution. 

Ver. 7. But the heavens and the earth 
which are now, by His word are kept in 
store.—0i δὲ viv οὐρανοί. Νῦν belongs also to γῇ 
and presupposes a change wrought upon the 
heavens and the earth by the flood; according to 
our exposition, it is not in antithesis with ὁ τότε 
κόσμος.--- Τῷ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ. The same Divine om- 
nipotence which commanded the water to destroy 
men and to lay waste the earth, will hereafter 
destroy the present world by fire, and not only 
change the surface of the earth. [Irenzus calls 
the last conflagration, ‘‘diluvium ignis.” Bengel: 
“Ignis confutabit empxctas.”—M. } 

Kept in store.—joavpifew, properly, to lay 
up in store, to treasure up, 6. g., grain or a 
treasure. The meaning is not, that the present 
world is only a treasure gathered together and 
saved from the deluge, merely a remnant of the 
original world-totality. Such an idea belongs 
not to θησαυρός. But the reference is doubtless 
partly to the promise (Gen. ix. 15), and partly to 
the redemption in Christ. Calov:—‘*The world, 
for a certain time, is as yet in store and left un- 
hurt, like treasure stored up in a chest, as yet 
untouched.” Huther justly rejects Dietlein’s 
notion that the idea of profit must be held fast, 
in the sense that the heavens and the earth are 
the materials stored up for the exercise of pun- 
ishment, yet so that they shall perish under the 
punishment. 

Reserved unto fire, etc.—I]vpi must not be 
connected with τεϑησαυρισμένοι, but with τηρού- 
μενοι. Just as fire is even now an instrument of 
punishment to the world, so it will be used as an 
instrument of the destruction of the world in the 
final judgment, ef. Gen, xix. 24; Amos vii. 4; 
Is. Ixvi. 15; Dan. vii. 9; 2 Thess. i.8; Matt. iii. 
12; xxv. 41; Rev. xix. 20; xx. 10. This is en- 
larged upon in v. 10.---Τηρούμενοι, used several 
times by Peter, 1 Pet. i. 4; 2 Pet. ii. 4. 9. 17.— 
'Arwieiac. —Calov:—‘* Not perfect destruction, 
but perdition and eternal death.”—Tév ἀσεβῶν 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


av pérav.—Dietlein applies this to the whole hu- 
mau race, because with the exception of the con- 
verted, it is ungodly. [But he is here, as so oft- 
en, inaccurate and unreliable. The reference is 
simply to the ungodly among men. The follow- 
ing passage from an oration by Melito, Bp. of 
Sardis, in the second century, published from the 
Syriac by Cureton, is an interesting relic of an- 
cient exegesis: ‘‘There was a flood of water, and 
all men and living creatures were destroyed by the 
multitude of waters, and the just were preserved 
in an ark of wood by the ordinance of God. So 
also it will be at the last time; there will be a 
flood of fire, and the earth will be burnt up, to- 
gether with its mountains, and men will be burnt 
up with the idols which they have made; and the 
sea together with the isles will be burnt, and the 
Just shall be delivered from the fury (of the fire), 
as their fellows in the ark (were saved) from the 
waters in the deluge.” —M. 

Ver. 8. But let this one thing not escape 
you, etc.—This is not a second refutation of the 
scoffers, but the removal of an obstacle which 
believers might find in the protracted delay of 
Christ’s advent. 

That one day is before the Lord.—The 
shortest space of time before Him, is in His 
sight long enough for the execution of events, 
which in our computation would require a thou- 
sand years, and the longest space of time before 
Him passes away as rapidly as does a day to us. 
In order to occupy the right stand-point with re- 
spect to the coming of Christ, we must apply the 
standard of eternity, and not use human mea- 
sures of time. The second clause of the propo- 
sition is taken from Ps. xc. 4. Time is not ab- 
solutely denied in the case of God, but His rela- 
tion to time is very different from that sustained 
by us men, the creatures of a day. Bengel:— 
‘‘God’s enologium (time-piece for eternity) dif- 
fers from the horologium (time-piece for mous) 
of mortals. But how shall we understand this? 
If we could understand it, Moses and Peter 
would not have been under the necessity of add- 
ing ‘‘with the Lord.’’—Stier:—‘ He who created 
the heavens and the earth in six days, because 
He thus willed it, may also suddenly accomplish 
in one day that which under other circumstances 
would require a thousand years; in like manner 
He may ordain thousands of years to be to the 
world week-and-work-days before His great 
Sabbath begins to dawn. The longest time is 
only brief after God’s measure; yet it hastens 
and rushes irresistibly into eternity, just because 
it is time.”—Thiersch :—‘'The internal develop- 
ment of mankind, which must have reached its 
consummation before the end of the world, is so 
entirely dependent on the Divine disposal that at 
one time there may occur a step forward so 
mighty that we should hardly have expected it 
to take place in a thousand years, while at an- 
other time, the course of development, retarded 
by God, does not progress in a thousand years 
any further than at other times in a day.” This 
is as incorrect as Dietlein’s view, that God will 
punish in one day the sin of thousands of years, 
and thus equalize the great disfiguring which by 
so long a duration had come into eternity; that 
otherwise the duration of time with God is of 
great, though not of necessary, importance, be- 


CHAP. III. 1-9. 


cause a thousand years are before Him as one 
day.—The Fathers, as is well known, have drawn 
from this passage the inference that the world is 
to last six thousand years, especially as Heb. iv. 
9 speaks of a Sabbath-time of the people of God, 
but without sufficient reason. 

Ver. 9. The Lord is not tardy.—0v βρα- 
δύνει ὁ κύριος. Βραδύνω, to delay, to postpone [to 
be late.—M.], usually construed with the Accu- 
sative, but here with the Genitive. See Winer, 
% 30.—De Wette:—,padivec is not taken in re- 
lation to a definite point of time, according to hu- 
man expectation, as in 1 Tim. iii. 15, but with 
reference to the purpose and counsel (of God); 
for although with reference to the former the au- 
thor admitted a delay, he denied the title to such 
an expectation, according to v. 8, because God’s 
views of time (as well as His thoughts and 
ways, cf. Is. lv. 8) are different from men’s. 
Similarly, Sir., 35, 22; cf. Hab. ii. 3.—Calov:— 
“Although it seems as though He were tardy 
(Rev. vi. 10), He is not tardy after the manner 
of men, from procrastination or neglect, but 
from long-suffering, for, as Justin observes, He 
prefers repentance to punishment.”—Kiépvoc, as 
in v. 8, denotes God the Father.—dc rwé¢ Bpadv- 
tyra. The reference here is not to scoffers, who 
deny the coming of Christ, but to weak believers. 

But He is long-suffering towards us, etc. 
---μακροθυμεῖ. He is long-suffering, putting off 
His punishment for a long time, Matt. xviii. 26. 
29; Lke. xviii. 7; 1 Thess. v. 14. ic ἡμᾶς, to- 
wards us, the called, then to us all, to men in 
general. Βούλεσθαι, to will, as the result of con- 
scious deliberation, but not with irresistible coer- 
cion. Calov:—‘‘As an earthly king would de- 
sire to see all his subjects happy, as far as they 
are his subjects, not as far as they are malefac- 
tors.” —Xopeiv εἰς, to go into, to enter, Matt. xy. 
17; cf. Ezek. xviii. 23; xxxiii. 11; 1 Tim. ii. 4. 
—The adherents of the Calvinistic doctrine of 
predestination wrongly restrict this passage to 
the elect. Calvin himself explains it of the will 
of God revealed in the Gospel as contrasted with 
His hidden counsel. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. A sure means of resisting the temptations 
of the last anti-Christian times and of repelling 
the assaults of deceivers is keeping the prophet- 
ic and apostolic word in an honest and good heart, 
even as Christ often exhorts us to keep His say- 
ings against the subtle attacks of the enemy.— 
“Τὴ the last days there will be a thorough con- 
fluence of all the corruption engendered by for- 
mer unbelief.” —‘‘He who by his lusts is cor- 
rupted in error, will do what he desires, and will 
not be deterred from it by any fear of God. This 
necessitates an unbelieving cancelling of all the 
truth of God, and if good proofs of such pre- 
tences are wanting, scofiing and witty humour 
must become the substitutes of proof.” H. Rie- 

er 
ἔ 2. Peter in making mention of the last days, 
draws no distinction between the second and 
third coming of Jesus, as made prominent in the 
Revelation of John, and alluded to in 1 Cor. xy. 
28. 24. This circumstance deserves to be no- 


43 


ticed in connection with the inquiry relating to 
the date of this Epistle. 

3. ‘The Word of God composed in writing is 
the instrument of our conversion and illumina- 
tion, the store-house of all salutary knowledge 
and wisdom, and the armory against all sorts of 
enemies.” Gerhard. 

4, Although we must identify the scoffers pri- 
marily as those deceivers, who arose at the end 
of the Apostolic age, the prophecy, nevertheless, 
is ever undergoing new fulfilments in the course 
of time, and will have its most fearful fulfilment 
in the last times. In ancient times, Simon Ma- 
gus is cited as denying the end of the world (in 
the Pseudo-Clementine Recogn., v. 3); in the mid- 
dle ages, a heresy sprung up, which maintained 
the imperishableness of the world. yv. Meyer 
asks whether that portrait of the future does not 
perfectly apply to the rebellious liberty and 
wanton licentiousness of the corrupt priesthood 
and monastic orders of the middle ages and later 
times? ‘The Hegelian school of philosophers 
(at least those of the left side) deride the Church’s 
faith in a visible advent of Christ, in the judg- 
ment and the end of the world, as a pietistic no- 
tion. They see in the dominant influence of the 
idea (Begriff), brought about by the Hegelian 
philosophy, Christ returned, and regard the end 
of pietism, of orthodox Christianity as hereto- 
fore existing, to be the end of the world.” Rich 
ter. 

5. “Τὸ is an old trick of the devil to oppose the 
course of nature to the word and promises of God, 
seeing that God is the Author of nature, and able 
at His pleasure to change or wholly destroy it.” 
Gerhard. 

6. The traditions of other nations also contain 
the hypothesis that the world originated out of 
water. The Chinese and the Egyptians teach that 
water is the oldest element. The Vedas of the 
Hindoos declare that this world was originally 
water; the code of Manu declares that water was 
the first thing which God created; Ramayana re- 
ports that originally all things were water, and 
that the earth was formed out of it. But this, 
so far from being a ground of suspicion against 
the teaching of Scripture, in connection with 
other reasons, constitutes a proof in its favour. 

7. In like manner all nations have their le- 
gends of the great deluge, of which the highest 
mountains, the graves and caverns of the earth 
bear testimony. The deluge, according to Scrip- 
ture, was not partial and local, but universal; 
but natural science, to be sure, is incompetent to 
account for it by natural causes. 

8. The preservation of the world, as well as 
its beginning, depends altogether on the will, the 
word and the direction of God. ‘*The word of 
God is not only the architect of the heavens and 
the earth, but also the prop and foundation of 
this edifice, Heb. i. 8.”’ Gerhard. 

9. The statements of Peter respecting the 
world being reserved unto fire, are partly con- 
nected with the sayings of Christ, Mk. ix. 44; 
Matt. iii. 10. 12; xxv. 41; xiii. 40. 42; vi. 22, 
and partly, where he goes beyond them, to be re- 
garded asa revelation which he had received. 
The religions of the pagans and the philoso- 
phemes of the Greeks and Romans, frequently 
describe fire as the end of the world. Zoroaster 


44 


assumed a dissolution of the mountains by the 
action of fire. The Orphic cosmogony, Herac- 
litus and the Stoics, the Epicureans, Pliny, Ovid, 
the Gallicans and the Scandinavians coincide 
in this respect. The Mexicans describe the 
fourth age of the world, as the age of fire. The 
Hindoos also teach the future burning of the 
world. ‘This fact proves nothing against the 
truth of this doctrine. On the contrary, it can 
only deepen the overpowering impression of the 
sacred revelations of the final judgment.” Diet- 
lein.—‘‘As men are melted and purified by the 
fire (of the law, the love of God and the suffer- 
ings of Christ), so it will fare with the earth 
which goes the course of man. In the time of 
Tycho de Brahe, according to the opinion of 
some, another solar system met perhaps a similar 
fate.” Richter. 

10. Although time was created simultaneously 
with the creature, it is nevertheless to God also 
a reality, otherwise He would not interfere with 
time and be conscious of what occurs in time; 
but He is superior to the river of time and con- 
trols it. A thousand years with Him are as one 
day, similar, (so Bengel puts it), as a thousand 
flourins are with a rich man as a farthing. 

11. Even before Justin and other fathers gave 
currency to the opinion that the world should 
last six thousand years, the ancient Ziruscans 
taught from tradition that the world’s duration 
was fixed at 6000 years, that the sixth millennium 
would bring the end and the great year. 

12. Calov rightly declares verse 9 to be an 
unanswerable proof against the absolute decree 
of Calvin, and quotes also 1 Tim. ii. 4. God 
wills to save all men only in Christ and in the 
order of repentance and faith. 

[18. Bp. Conybeare on v. 5: “The truth of 
the case is, God does not interpose in a miracu- 
lous manner upon every instance of sin: as He 
hath made men free agents, so He doth not in- 
terrupt the use of this liberty by breaking in 
upon the common order of causes and effects. 
Hence nature goes on for the most part in one 
uniform course; and exemplary punishments are 
reserved only for extraordinary occasions. Yet 
still God hath not left Himself without witness: 
many predictions of His prophets have been al- 
ready confirmed by fact; the old world was de- 
stroyed by a miracle, and Sodom and Gomorrah 
are set forth for an example, having suffered the 
vengeance of eternal fire.” Instances of this 
kind, it must be confessed, are rare: however, 
those few which have been afforded us are 
enough to alarm the sinner. Men should not 
flatter themselves that their crimes are forgotten, 
because they are yet unpunished: but rather 
dread the delays of vengeance. Though mercy 
spares them for the present, yet this very mercy, 
if slighted, will increase their future ruin.—M. ] 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The advent of Christ: 1. Its signs and cer- 
tainty. 2. The particulars attending it. 8. The 
preparation for it.—As the coming of the Lord 
draws nearer, the denial and derision of it will 
grow stronger.—It should be our most anxious 
care to be ready, whether the Lord come early or 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


late.—Why does God defer the full punishment 
of the ungodly to the day of judgment? 1. Be- 
cause the measure of their unrighteousness is 
not yet wholly filled; 2. Because it is His will 
to accord to sinners room for repentance; 8. In 
order to set His long-suffering towards all men, 
in the clearest light; 4. In order to make more 
manifest the wickedness of those who will not be 
converted.—Let us take heed, not to abuse the 
long-suffering of God, but to know the time of 
our visitation, Lke. xix. 44.—What is the longest 
life in the light of eternity? A span of time of 
1} to 2 hours’ duration. 

Srarke :—As frail men grow soon tired and 
are overcome of sleep, so it is with Christians ; 
hence it is necessary that they should be con- 
stantly stirred, shaken and roused, Heb. xii. 1. 
—The works of our bad Christians show that 
they believe neither in heaven nor hell, neither 
in angels nor in the devil, but the truth will 
come home to them, Zeph. i. 12.—Only see, how 
deeply man can fall through the violence of his 
lusts; deeper than the devil himself, who denies 
neither God nor His judgment, but trembles at 
it, Mtt. viii. 29; Jas. ii. 19.—Ignorance in things 
human or Divine is never good, but malicious ig- 
norance, which refuses to hear and to know the 
truth, is worthy of hell-fire, Is. 1. 11.—The pre- 
sent world will be more severely visited than the 
former world, which was laid waste by water; 
but this world will be burnt up by a consuming 
fire, which the Lord Himself will kindle, 2 Thess. 
i. 7. 8.—The long-suffering of God is accompa- 
nied by tender love, looking to the salvation of 
men; hence He does not overtake them with His 
judgment of wrath, but gives them time enough 
to repent, Ez. xxxiii. 11; ii. 1. 

V. Hersercer:—1l. How Peter answers five 
questions relating to the last day. 2. How tho- 
roughly he instructs us as to the manner of our 
preparing for it. Ap 1. a. Whether we are yet 
to wait confidently for the last day? 6. When and 
at what time it will come? c. Why Jesus has not 
come for so long a time? d and e. How and in 
what manner the last day will come? f. What 
the Lord Jesus will do and perform on the last 
day? Ap 2. a. In holy conversation and godli- 
ness, 6. To wait and hasten unto the coming of 
the day of the Lord, c. To give all diligence that 
we may be found of Him without spot and blame- 
less. 

J.C. Srorr:—The waiting of believers for 
the coming of the day of God: 1. What they 
wait for; 2. Who are they who wait? 8. How 
do they wait? 

Srizer:—The Apostle’s word concerning the 
expectation of the last day: 1. The certainty of 
its coming; 2. The manner of its coming; 3. 
The preparation for it. 

Karrr :—The beginning and completion of the 
Kingdom of God: 1. The beginning in the crea- 
tion of the world and man; 2. The completion 
in the renovation of man and of the world. 

Lisco:—The completion with which the citi- 
zens of the kingdom comfort themselves. The 
emptiness of the objections against the Bible- 
dogma of the Lord’s coming to judgment. : 

Sraupr:—The destruction of the world: 1. 
The reasons why many do not believe it; 2. How 
does the destruction of the world affect us? 


CHAP. III. 10-18. 


45 


Suarp :—[O what confusion will this be to all 
unbelievers and impenitent sinners, when they 
shall see that very Person, of whom they thought 
so meanly, and whose offers of salvation they 
often despised, appearing in the clouds of heaven 
with ten thousand glorious angels about Him, 
and coming in the most terrible manner that can 
be imagined, to call them to account for their 
lives past, and to execute judgment upon all un- 
godly men! They will not then any longer, with 
the scoffers, that Peter tells us should be in the 
last days, say, ‘‘where is the promise of His com- 
ing? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things 
continue as they were from the beginning of the 
creation ;” for they shall be convinced that, how- 
ever His coming was for good reasons deferred, 
yet He shall then come to purpose; to the ever- 
lasting confusion of their faces, that opposed, or 
despised, or neglected Him and His religion. 
Then shall they say, Yonder He is, whom we 
slighted, whose religion we denied, whose ser- 
vants and followers we took to be no better than 
a company of credulous fools! Lo, yonder He is 
in the clouds, whose tenders of mercy we have 


refused, whose counsels we have rejected, to 
whose Spirit we have done despite! Yonder He 
is: but no longer ‘‘a carpenter’s son;” no longer 
‘¢a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;”’ 
no longer a mean, obscure Galilean; no longer a 
crucified God, as we in derision called Him: but 
the everlasting Son of the everlasting Father; 
the Sovereign of angels! the Judge of mankind 
and of devils; the Lord of all things both in 
earth and heaven.—M. | 

[Cf. Josep Mepe’s Paraphrase and ᾿ Exposi- 
ἢ of St. Peter. 2. Epistle, ch. iii. Works, II., 
7538. 

Additional Sermon-Themes : 

Ver. 3. Ridicule in matters of religion. Mod- 
ern infidelity. Some prophecies are daily ful- 
filling. 

Ver. 4. Miracles now neither necessary to the 
conviction of unbelievers, nor the conversion of 
sinners, (FippEs). Consistency between the 
efficacy of prayer and the uniformity of nature. 
(CHALMERS). 

Ver. 8. God’s eternity in reference to the sus- 
pension of his promised purposes, (R. Haui).—M. ] 


CHAPTER III. 10-18. 


10 


But the day? of the Lord will come as a thief in the night,? in the which the 


ie 


17 
18 


heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt* with fervent 
heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shallbe burnedup.’ Seevng then δ 
that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye’ to be in all 
holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hastening® unto the coming of the 
day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements 
shall melt with fervent heat?? Nevertheless we, according to his promise," look 
for new heavens and a new” earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, be- 
loved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in 
peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord 
vs salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto 
him™ hath written unto you; As also in all’ his epistles, speaking in them of these 
things; in which” are some things hard to be understood, which they that are un- 
learned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own de- 
struction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye 
also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.” 
But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To 
him de glory both now and forever. Amen. 


Verse 10. 1 y,omitted by Lachmann and Tisch. The Article is not wanted, because every body knows what sort of a 
_ day it is. cf. v.7; Phil. i. 6.10; ii. 16. [ omitted in B. C.; inserted in Rec. with A. K. L., al—M.] 
2év νυκτί omitted by Tischen. and al. [also in A. B., Sin., al., Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm., al.; inserted in 0. 
K. L., Rec., Syr.—M.] 
[3 Omit οἱ before οὐρανοὶ, Sin., Κι. L., al.—Sin. and Cod. Colbert., insert μὲν after ovpavoi—M.] 
4 ee λυθήσεται; Tisch. with A. α΄. K. prefers λυθήσονται [Sin., B. C., read λυθήσε- 
Tat.—M. 
[®Sin. B. L., al., read εὑρεθήσεται forkataxaynoetat.—M.] 
[German: “ Asa thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a crashing roar, but the 
elements shall be dissolved in fire, and the earth and the works init, shall be burned up.” 
Translate: “As a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a rushing noise, but the 
elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works in it shall be burned up.”— 
Dr. Lillie calls attention to the onomatopoeia in ῥοιζηδόν which most versions here sought to pre- 
serve. The word rushing, like the German ‘Gersusch’ (Stier) resembles ῥοιζηδόν most.—In 
λυθήσονται I have retained the Passive force with Vulg., Syr., de Wette, Alford and Lillie—M.] 


46 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


Verse 11. ® Tisch., with B. C., and many other authorities, reads οὕτως for οὖν; [οὖν, A. K.L., Vulg., al—M.] 


[ ἡμᾶς, Sin.*—omits ὑμᾶς B.—M.] 


(German: “Since then all these things are being dissolved, as what sort of persons ought ye to evidence 
yourselves in all manner of holy walk and godliness?” 
Translate: “All these things being thus to be dissolved (Alford) what manner... . 2’—M.] 
Verse 12. [8 Sin. omits καὶ σπεύδοντ; but Tisch. marks the reading with *.—M.] 
(German: “Expecting and hastening (so Alford, Bloomf., de Wette, Lillie) the coming of the day of God, 
for the sake of which (παρουσίαν) the heavens being on fire, shall dissolve (themselves), and the 
elements shall melt away with fervent heat.” 


9 Translate: “ 


by reason of which (ἡ μέραν understood, Alford), the heavens being on fire 


shall be dissolved, and the elements shall be melted with a fervent heat (τακήσεται Ὁ. Vulg., 
Lachm., or retaining τήκεται as the present of destiny, render ‘are to be melted.’)”—M.] 

Verse 13. [19 The German dagegen, and nevertheless of E. V. objectionable on account of their strong adversative force 
and the emphasis they give to ἡμεῖς ; better translate ‘but’ with most of the foreign versions, Alf., 


Hammond, Doddridge, Lillie —M.] 


ll A. Lachm. read καὶ τὰ ἐπαγγελμάτα αὐτοῦ. 


Sin. τὰ ἐπεγγαλμάτα.--Μ.] 


[13 Insert καινὴν before γῆν A. Vulg., αἱ. πτκενήν γῆν Sin.—M.] 
Verse 14. [German : “Wherefore, beloved, expecting these things, be diligent to be found spotless and: blameless be- 


fore Him in peace.”—M.] 


Verse 15. [13 Rec. has αὐτῷ before δοθεῖσαν with L,; 


German: “ Account your salvation.” 


δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ, A. B.C. K., Sin., al.—M.] 


Better in strict conformity to the Greek “ And the longsuffering of 


our Lord account salvation——wrote unto you.”—M. 
Verse 16. [14 ταῖς before ἐπιστολαῖς omitted in A. B. Ὁ. K,, al., Vulg,. Syr., Alf.—M.], Lachm. and Tisch. 
16 Lachmann reads als referring ἢ ἐπιστολαῖς; Tischend., with A. G. K. prefers the reading ols. So 


de Wette. [ἐν als, A. B., Sin.—M. 
[15 German : “ As he also does in all his 


pistles, speaking in them of these things, among which are some 


things difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, as also the other Scriptures to 


their own perdition.”—M. 


Verse 17. [17 German: “Ye, therefore, beloved, knowing it before, beware, lest being led away together with the 
error of the lawless, ye fall from your own stedfastness.”—M.] 

Verse 18. [18 German: “ But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be 
glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” 


Translate :— . . 


“To Him the glory both now and to the day of eternity.”—M.] 


Sunscription: πετροὺ BA. B.Sin.; extaotodn metpov a’ xat β' Cod. Colbert.;-rov aytov 


αποστολου 
λιχη. C.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 10. But the day of the Lord will 
come.—The Apostle having made mention of 
the long-suffering of God, now says, as it were, 
let none deceive himself, the day of the Lord will 
not fail to appear, but it will come surely and 
suddenly. Ἥξει dé ἡ ἡμέρα κυρίου; it is called the 
day of God in v. 12; hence κυρίου is here doubt- 
Ἰοββεσεθεοῦ, as in v. 9. So Joel i. 15; Ezek. xiii. 
5; Isa. ii. 12. The day of Jehovah; ef. Jas. v. 7. 
Elsewhere the day of the Lord Jesus, 2 Cor. i. 
14. The day of Christ, 2 Thess. ii. 2; also the 
day of the Lord’s coming, Mal. iii. 3, The last 
expression contains an intimation that the begin- 
ning of that great period of judgment must be 
distinguished from the Lord’s coming in the same. 
The former sets in unexpectedly and without no- 
tice. The Lord’s coming will be unexpected, but 
not unnoticed by the ungodly; it will be attended 
by a war-cry, the voice of the archangel, and 
with the trump of God, 1 Thess. iv. 16. 

As a thief in the night.—The same figure 
is used by the Lord Himself in the Gospels, Matt. 
xxiv. 43; Luke xii. 89. Paul also compares the 
coming of that day to the burglarious entry of a 
thief. The passages in Revelation, ch. iii. 8; 
xvi. 15, which contain this description of .the 
Lord’s coming, give prominence to the sudden- 
ness and surprise of His coming, not to its being 
unnoticed. His coming is free from surprise and 
terror to those who watch and observe the signs 
of the times; it is to them rather a joyful event, 
Luke xxi. 28.—The figure of the thief contains 
also the secondary thought, that those who are 
held fast in the sleep of sin and security, shall 
lose in that catastrophe whatever they have, 
Matt. xiii. 12; John x. 10. 

In which the heavens shall pass away 
with a crashing roar; ῥοιζηδόν from ῥοιζέω, 


metpov extotodAn [dcutepa. Lal; πετροὺ χαθο- 


ῥοίζω, to rush, to whiz, to crash; a word formed 
to resemble the sound, rushing, whizzing, crash- 
ing, here only in the New Testament. Oecume- 
nius understands it of the crackling noise of a 
destructive fire; de Wette, of the crash of falling 
houses. The Apostle probably thinks of both, 
(Huther).—IlapeAcioovrac; our Lord uses the 
same word, Matt. xxiv. 35; cf. Ps. cii. 27; Isa. 
xxxiy. 4; Rey. xx. 11.—Ovpavoi, the sky and the 
starry heavens, as in v. 7; cf. Ps. lxxii. 7; cii. 
26; Isa. xxxiv. 4; li. 6; Ixy. 17. 

But the elements shall be dissolved in 
fire, and—shall be burned up.—ro.yeia; the 
rudiments of speech, then the constituent ele- 
ments of the universe; of course not the elements 
in the sense of chemistry, but in the sense of an- 
tiquity, which since the time of Empedocles as- 
sumed the existence of four elements or rudiments 
of things; οἵ. Wisd. vii. 17; xix. 17.—Caloy re- 
stricts the word to water and air, because the 
earth is specifically mentioned afterward. But 
de Wette rightly observes that the earth is re- 
ferred to first as an element, and afterward as a 
totality. There is nothing contradictory in the 
idea that this elemental fire shall be suspended 
in its action by a stronger and supernatural fire. 
A total annihilation of the elemental constituents 
is out of the question; the reference is rather to 
the supposition of Gennadius and Oecumenius, 
that ‘‘the old heavens and the old earth shall be 
changed and renovated into better.’’—A reference 
to v. 12, where the στοιχεῖα are mentioned, and 
not the earth expressly, shows plainly that στοι- 
χεῖα relates primarily to the earth. δὲ, moreover 
intimates as much. Bengel, on the other hand, 
sees here, with many of the fathers, a reference 
to the sun, the moon anal the stars. The sense—= 
θεμέλια, foundations of the earth, given by others, 
cannot be verified. [The view of Bengel is that 
of Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, Polycrates, 
Mede, Hammond, Whitby and Alford. The last 


CHAP. III. 10-18. 


named author, after quoting Justin, argues that 
δὲ followed presently by the καί when reference 
is made to the earth, necessarily belongs to the 
heavens, and that the mention of the heavenly 
bodies as affected by the great day is constant in 
Scripture, cf. Matt. xxiv. 29; Isa. xiii. 9.10; xxiv. 
23; xxxiy. 4, etc. On the other hand, the view 
propounded in the text is that of Wordsworth, 
who says that ‘‘St. Peter’s meaning seems to be, 
that the στοιχεῖα, elements or rudiments, of which 
the universe is composed and compacted, will be 
loosed ; that is, the frameworks of the world will 
be disorganized, and this is the sense of στοιχεῖα 
in the LXX., Wisd. vii. 17; xix. 18, and in Hyp- 
polyt. Philos. pp. 219. 318. The dissolution is 
contrasted with the consistency described by the 
word ovveoréoainy.5. The heavens are reserved 
for fire (v. 7) and will pass away with a rushing 
noise, and, being set on fire, will be dissolved (v. 
12), the elements will be on fire and melt (v. 12), 
and be reduced to a state of confusion; the earth 
and the works therein will be burnt up.—There does 
not seem, therefore, to be any cause for abandon- 
ing the common meaning of στοιχεῖα, the elemental 
principles of which the universe is made.””—M. ] 
—Avéjoovrat. Gerhard: ‘‘When the preserving 
and supporting power of God, which is, as it 
were, the soul of the world, shall separate itself 
from the macrocosm, it will fall together like a 
soulless corpse.” 

The works.—To wit, the works of nature 
and of art [Bengel: opere nature et artis.—M. | 
trees, plants, minerals, animals, cities, houses, 
provisions, instruments, etc., cf. Hab. ii. 13. 

[Shall be burned up.—The variation eipe- 
θήσεται of Cod. Sin. B. and K. is difficult to ac- 
count for.—M.]_ _ 

Ver. 11. Since then all these things are 
being dissolved.—Avopévor, not λυθησομένων. 
The Apostle vividly enters into the catastrophe 
and mentally anticipates it according to the cha- 
racteristic, which has been noticed in ch. ii. 10; 
111, 8, and especially also in the first Epistle. 
Winer, p. 358, explains it as follows: ‘These 
things, by their nature intended to be dissolved— 
the destiny of dissolution is already inherent 
in them.” Calov applies the Present to the cer- 
tainty of the event. [The reading οὕτως accords 
with the abrupt style of Peter, and makes the 
scene all the more vivid.—M. ] 

As what sort of persons ought ye to 
evidence yourselves? etc.—lIloramé¢ or πο- 
daréc from τόπος or δάπεδον, land, soil, signifies 
properly, from what country, where born, whence 
in point of origin, not equivalent to ποῖος. Cf. 
Matt. viii. 27; Luke i. 29; vii. 89: 1 John iii. 1. 
It often denotes a question of surprise, to which 
no answer is given; but here the answer is added 
in y. 12. Sense: ‘‘Ye must evidence yourselves 
as persons of more noble origin, as citizens of 
the heayenly kingdom that are only strangers 
here on earth.” This seems to be an echo of the 
first Epistle. The common use of ποταπός in the 
New Testament as connected with an exclamation, 
is not decisive against our interpretation. Hu- 
ther wants to supply before ποταποὺς, ‘‘ consider 
then,” but this is arbitrary. De Wette takes 
ποταποὺς in the sense of guantus, how great, how 
strong, how diligent ought ye to be in holy con- 
versation. But this is ungrammatical, The 


47 


connection is this: Considering that this entire 
world-system, with whatever it contains, is 
doomed to perish, it becomes us Christians to 
tear our hearts from all inordinate love of the 
world, and to qualify ourselves even now as citi- 
zens of the celestial world. Augustine: “ΤΡ there 
is an end of the world, if we have to move away 
from this world, we must not love the world;” 
and in another passage: ‘Seeing that Christ 
shall come to judgment the very day in which 
the world shall be dissolved, and that all must 
appear before His judgment-seat, let us live in 
the true fear of God, serve Him in holiness and 
righteousness, and carefully guard against sins.” 
—’Avaotpodaic. The Plural as in 1 Peter i. 15; 
ii. 1, to mark the different forms and directions 
of a holy walk and piety, cf. 2 Peter ii. 2; i. 3. 

Ver. 12. Expecting and hastening the 
coming of the day of God.—IIpoadoxav.—Not 
with Luther: To wait as contrasted with haste, 
but looking for, expecting something while en- 
during the pressure of evil, cf. v. 14.----Σπεύδον- 
τας. Some commentators arbitrarily supply εἰς; 
the sense of yearning or longing for cannot be 
verified; it signifies to urge, to press, to hasten, 
and applies therefore not only to earnest occu- 
pation, but, as Bengel asserts, to inward strug- 
gling, to perseverance in prayer for the hasten- 
ing of the Kingdom of Christ, and to preparation 
for it in repentance and holiness. At the same 
time the remark of Richter is true, that ‘‘ina 
certain respect it is visionary, dangerous and 
passionate to pray for the hastening of the end 
of the world and the termination of the son of 
Gospel-calling.” 

[Trench (Bible Revision, p. 112) pronounces 
for the marginal reading in Εἰ. V., ‘‘hasting the 
coming” (accelerantes adventum, Erasmus), and 
explains: The faithful, that is, shall seek to cause 
the day of the Lord to come the more quickly by 
helping to fulfil those conditions, without which 
it cannot come—that day being no day inexorably 
fixed, but one the arrival of which it is free to the 
Church to help and hasten on by faith and by 
prayer, and through a more rapid accomplishing 
of the number of the elect.”? De Wette, followed 
by Alford: ‘“‘They hasten it by perfecting, in 
repentance and holiness, the work of the Gospel, 
and thus diminishing the need of the μακροθυμία, 
vy. 9,” to which the delay of that day is owing. 
Alford, in reply to Huther’s objection, says, ‘It 
is true that the delay or hastening of that day is 
not man’s matter, but God’s: but it is not uncom- 
mon in Scripture, to attribute to ws those Divine 
acts, or abstinences from acting, which are really 
and in their depth, God’s own. Thus we read, 
that ‘He could not do many mighty works there 
because of their unbelief,’ Matt. xiii. 58, com- 
pared with Mark vi. 5. 6; thus repeatedly of 
man’s striving with, hindering, quenching God’s 
Holy Spirit.”—Wordsworth considers this re- 
markable thought as compared with St. Peter’s 
speech in Acts iii., as another silent evidence of 
the genuineness of this Epistle.—M. ] 

Τὴν παρουσίαν. See v. 10, ef. Tit. ii. 18; Rev. 
xvi. 14; Acts xvii. 81. The term “day of God” 
cannot excite surprise, if respect is had to the 
Old Testament. Lachmann’s notion that the au- 
thor had given up the hope of Christ’s coming, 
and mixed it up with God’s future day of judg- 


48 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


ment, is incongruous, for he treats of the Lord’s 
παρουσία in ch. iii. 4. - 

For the sake of which the heavens 
being on fire, shall dissolve (themselves), 
and the elements shall melt away wit 
fervent heat; δέ ἣν. It is best to connect ἣν 
with παρουσίαν, and to take διά as indicating the 
oceasioning cause. Winer, p. 418, [who sanc- 
tions however the construction recommended in 
Appar. Crit., which is also that adopted by Al- 
ford.—M.] Dietlein renders “in honour of 
which, as it were,”’ but this rendering is inappo- 
site. Ifthe plan of God is to be carried out, this 
sin-stained world must perish. Augustine says 
of the succession of the events, ‘‘After the judg- 
ment the world will be on fire; that is, it will be 
entirely burned up.” This is also thought pro- 
bable by Gerhard, who holds moreover that the 
burning of the world will take place before the 
wicked are cast into hell and the godly received 
to heaven. 

Ἑαυσοῦσθαι and τήκεσθαι, to melt like wax, are 
ἅπαξ λεγ. The Present is used here for the same 
reason, as inv. 11, above. [The note of Wolfius, 
(Curz Philologice et Criticx) on the force of these 
Presents will be found useful: ‘Interim nihil est 
mutandum. Patet enim, Apostolum in duobus his 
commatibus, data opera, nunc presenti λυομένων et 
τήκεται, nune futuro λυθήσεται de ca ru uti, que tam 
certa futura erat, ac si jam fieret.””—M. ] 

Ver. 13. But we, according to His pro- 
mise, expect new heavens and a new 
earth.—The Apostle, for the comfort of believers, 
contrasts the destruction of the present world- 
system with the expectation of new heavens and a 
new earth. This hope is founded on the word 
of prophecy, Isa. lxv. 17; lxvi. 22; xxx. 26; ef. 
Rey. xxi. 1. This does not denote an ideal state 
of blessedness, but a real spirituo-corporeal body- 
world, So Anselm: “‘The whole earth, which 
carried in its lap the body of the Lord, will bea 
paradise.” Augustine: ‘“‘The promises of God 
are apprehended by faith; hope cannot reach 
them, love cannot understand them; they surpass 
our longings and desires; they may be obtained, 
but cannot be estimated.’”’ Grotius mentions 
that Plato also speaks of a pure earth and a pure 
heavens. Calov suggests a substantial recreation 
of heaven. More correctly even Irenzus: “ Nei- 
ther the substance, nor the existence of the crea- 
ture will be annihilated.”” According to His pro- 
mise, κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα αὐτοῦ sc. God. 

In which dwelleth righteousness.—Not 
absir. pro concreto, the righteous, but true righ- 
teousness itself or a perfect agreement with the 
will of God, cf. Rev. xxi. 27.3. This is added 
partly for the encouragement, partly for the con- 
solation of believers with reference to their un- 
righteous oppressors. Huther produces similar 
passages from the book of Enoch, in which refer- 
ence seems to be made to our Epistles. [The 
passages are ch. x. 27; ly. 5; liv. 4. 5; xe. 17.— 
Wordsworth says, that the Apostle ‘does not re- 
present the heavens as destined to destruction, 
but as hereafter to be transformed (ἀναστοιχειου- 
μένους) to a more glorious condition. As the mor- 
tal bodies of the saints are dissolved by death, 
and will not be reduced to annihilation, but will, 
by reason of Christ’s resurrection, and of their 
incorporation in Him who is the Resurrection 


and the Life, be renewed to immortality, so the 
heavenly bodies will be renewed by fire and de- 
livered from the bondage of corruption. See 
Rom. viii. 20-22.—The material creation has 
sympathized with us in our fall, and it will re- 
joice with the righteous in their redemption and 
revivification, when their mortal bodies will rise 
and bloom anew like vernal herbs and flowers, 
in the glorious spring-tide of the resurrection. 
See Eusebius, Severus and others here in the 
Catena, Cramer, p. 100.—Thus the benefits of the 
incarnation and the redemption wrought by the 
second Adam extend also to the natural world. 
He has restored already the free use of the crea- 
tures to us (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 23), and He will raise 
the Creation itself to a more glorious state of 
being.” —M. ] 

Ver. 14. Wherefore, beloved, expecting 
these things, be diligent, etc.—The Apostle 
founds here an exhortation to holiness on the 
last named circumstance [i. 6., the expectation 
of the new heavens and the new earth.—M.], as 
in y. 11, on the expectation of that catastrophe. 
—Aori7o; cf. 1 Peter i. 19; 1 Tim. vi. 14; Jas. 
i. 27.— Auouyrot, Phil. ii. 15, like ἀμύμων, blame- 
less; that you cannot be blamed; for the opposite, 
see ch. ii. 13.—Air6, in His judgment, before 
Him, connect with εὑρεϑῆναι; cf. 2 Cor. xii. 20. 
--ΕΑΕὑρεϑῆναι, 1 Peter i. 7; ii. 22, in His day.— 
Ἔν εἰρήνῃ. De Wette explains it: For your 
peace—eic εἰρήνην; but in that case the Apostle 
would certainly have expressed it. Better Calov: 
‘‘In peace with God and with men.” [Alford 
suggests, that considering the familiarity of the 
Eastern tongue with the expression ἐν εἰρήνῃ, the 
phrase may have an onward as well as a present 
meaning, as in πορεύεσϑαι ἐν εἰρήνῃ and εἰς εἰρήνην, 
Acts xvi. 36: Jas. ii. 16; Luke vii. 50; viii. 48; 
and denote that eternal peace of which all 
earthly peace is but a feeble foretaste.—M. } 
More specific definition of ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἀμώμητι. 
Gerhard: ‘Strive that the Lord at His coming 
may find you peaceful and reconciled.” The 
thought is connected with δικαιοσύνη, vy. 13. Diet- 
lein thinks that it is added with reference to the 
subject about to be stated by the Apostle, viz., 
the peace-destroying animosity of the deceivers, 
and refers to Jude 19. But Peter states first 
something else. It has a good meaning with re- 
ference to the many internal and external peace- 
breakers, especially at that time, Heb. xii. 14. 

Ver. 15. Andaccount the longsuffering 
of our Lord your salvation, [see Appar Crit. 
—M.]; μακροθυμίαν, cf. v. 9; Rom. ii. 4: ix. 22. 
Every postponement of the day of judgment is 
also an extension of grace for believers, as far 
as they may make further progress in holiness. 
Dietlein: ‘‘ Apart from it, every converted Chris- 
tian, reviewing his conversion, is constrained 
to admit that unless the longsuffering of God did 
insert a development-process of sin and redemp- 
tion between apostacy and judgment, his conver- 
sion would have been impossible and the merited 
judgment would have overtaken him also.” To 
this must be added the observation that since the 
text reads σωτηρίαν in general, not σωτηρίαν ὑμῶν, 
the salvation of many others also is founded on 
this longsuffering. [After this exegesis, it is dif- 
ficult to understand why Fronmiiller retains the 
old Lutheran rendering.—M.] Roos: “The 


CHAP. III, 10-18. 


passage must not be limited to those persons who 
live at that time, but rather be extended to those 
who may still be born, if the long-suffering of 
God preserves this present world for a long 
time.” 

Even as also our beloved brother Paul 
—hath written unto you.—The deceivers, to 
whom Peter refers, probably abused the Epistles 
of the Apostle St. Paul, and represented Peter 
and Paul as contradicting each other ; on this ac- 
count Peter cites the testimony of Paul as con- 
. firmatory of his doctrine, and shows that between 

Paul and himself there is an intimate communion 
of spirit, and that the incident, mentioned Gal. 
ii. 11, was unable to extinguish his love. 

Asalso, relates, not to what immediately pre- 

cedes, but to the whole exhortation, vv. 14. 15, 
to holiness in view of the coming of Christ. 
Dietlein supposes that since the μακροθυμία of 
God is treated of only in Rom. ii. 4; ix. 22, the 
reference is evidently to the Epistle to the 
Romans, but the supposition that καθώς is to be 
thus limited, is wrong, and ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν is de- 
cidedly opposed to it. Peter must allude to an 
Epistle of Paul, which, like the present Epistle 
of Peter, is addressed to the Christians of Asia 
Minor. To say that the Epistle to the Romans 
was addressed to Gentiles in general, is no suf- 
ficient explanation. Hence Bengel, Gerhard, al., 
think it to be the Epistle to the Hebrews on ac- 
count of ch. ix. 26, ete.; x. 25, 87; others, the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, on account of ch. iv. 
80; vi. 8; Col. iii. 4,24. The reference is per- 
haps to all these; de Wette conjectures 1 Thess. 
iy, 18; v.11, and 2 Thess. ii. 16; but the above 
named reason is against this view [which is also 
that of Alford, who meets the objection founded 
on ὑμῖν, by saying that this Epistle is addressed 
to all Christians alike, cf. ch.i.1; and that all 
that can be inferred from ὑμῖν amounts to this, 
that this Epistle belongs-to a date when the 
Pauline Epistles were no longer the property 
only of the Churches to which they were written, 
but were dispersed through, and were considered 
.to belong to the whole Christian Church.—Ben- 
son considered the reference to be the Epistles 
to the Galatians, Ephesians and Colossians, be- 
cause addressed to Asia Minor Churches ; this is 
also the opinion of Wordsworth, who notices also 
that this text is quoted by Origen de Recta Fide, 
sect. II., and ascribed by him without any hesi- 
tation to St. Peter.—M. ]j 
Our beloved brother.— Brother must be 
taken in the narrow sense of ‘fellow-apostle.” 
How beautiful is this trait of Peter’s character, 
that he harboured no unkind remembrance of the 
sharp rebuke which Paul, who excelled him in his 
labours for the kingdom of God, had administered 
to him, and that he joyfully acknowledged his 
Apostolic calling. ~ 
According to the wisdom.—Dietlein: 
**Not so much preéminence in knowledge as ap- 
titude in teaching, knowledge which peculiarly 
qualifies for teaching; hence ministerial grace 
accorded to him.’’ Chrysostom does not hesitate 
to prefer Paul as a teacher to all others and to 
call him the teacher of all wisdom. [Polycarp 
ad Philipp. 1. 8 ; ““Νὸ one like me can equal the 


49 


which, if you look diligently, you will be enabled 
to be built up unto the faith.” —M. ] 

Ver. 16. As also in all his Epistles, 
speaking in them of these things.—’Ev 
πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς. Even if the Article is re- 
tained, which is probably spurious, there is no 
necessity to suppose here a reference to all the 
Epistles of Paul as a finished whole. It cannot 
be determined which and how many of the Paul- 
ine Epistles were known to Peter.—'Qe sc. éypa- 
we; περὶ τούτων ; of the coming of Christ, the end 
of the world and of what is connected with those 
events; stedfastness in faith and zeal in good 
works. Here Peter might refer more particu- 
larly to the Epistles to the Thessalonians. 

Among which are some things difficult 
to understand.—éy οἷς. Gerhard: ‘‘ Peter here 
makes no direct reference to the Pauline Epistles, 
but to the subjects of which they treat, among 
which are some hard to understand,” which be- 
longs to the nature of the last things.—*A στρεβ- 
hovow ; στρεβλόω from στρέβλη, an instrument of 
torture, a rock, a screw, a press, hence to screw, 
to strain, to wind, to twist or distort. A very 
striking word, peculiar to Peter, to describe the 
perversion of the Scriptures. As to the things 
themselves Bengel refers to 2 Tim. ii. 18; Ger- 
hard, to false views of the millennium, of justifi- 
cation by faith, of Christian liberty, of the com- 
ing of Antichrist, and especially to the justifi- 
cation and excuses of lawless extravagancies. 

The ignorant and unstable.—The refer- 
ence is perhaps rather to the deceived than to 
the deceivers and scoffers, for whom these two 
words would be too mild. On ἀστήρικτοι, ef. ch. 
li. 14. 

As also the other Scriptures; ὡς καὶ τὰς 
λοιπὰς γραφάς. Here again the reference is not 
to a completed collection of the writings of the 
New Testament, from which the inference might 
be drawn that this Epistle is of a comparatively 
late origin. De Wette, without sufficient reasons, 
understands passages of Scripture. The refer- 
ence is probably to the Pauline Epistles, the 
Epistle of James and the prophetical writings, 
which, according to v. 2 and ch. i. 20, must not 
be excluded. , 

To their own perdition.—Cf. ch. ii. 2; 
Deut. iv. 2; xii. 82; Rev. xxii. 19. Huther: 
«The perversion of the Scriptures has this con- 
sequence, since they use their distorted sayings 
in order to harden themselves in their carnal 
lusts.” We have only to add, that they also bring 
perdition on themselves because they deprive 
others of salvation. 

Ver. 17. Ye, therefore, beloved, know- 
ing it before, beware, lest being led away 
together with the error of the lawless.— 
Final exhortation not to suffer themselves to be 
made to waver in their hope by the error of the 
ungodly, and to grow in grace and knowledge.— 
Προγινώσκοντες. Bengel supplies: the danger. 
Dietlein refers it to the imminent attempts of de- 
ception. The Lord Himself set great value on the 
foretelling and fore-knowing of the future. Cf. 
Jno. xiv. 29; xvi. 4.---Φυλάσσεσϑε, iva py. Take 
heed, be on your guard that ye—fall not from.— 
Thus taken, the construction is not singular; cf. 


wisdom of the blessed Paul, who being absent | Lke.xii.15; Acts xxi. 25; 1Jno. v. 21.--- Αϑέσμων, 
wrote to you Epistles (ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὰς) into | ch. ii. 7; 111. 3; πλάνη, ch. ii. 18, error, delusion, 


50 


not deception, as Dietlein maintains ;—ovvaray- 
ϑέντες. Cf. Gal. ii. 18. Similar to what is said 
of sins, that, like the wind, they have taken us 
away, Is. lxiv. 6. [Alford notes the remarkable 
coincidence, that Peter, well acquainted as he 
was with the writings of Paul, should have 
written this word, which is the very one used by 
that Apostle of Barnabas, at Antioch, when he ow- 
απήχϑη with the hypocrisy of Peter and the other 
Jews.—M. ] ;---συναπαχϑέντες, together with them 
and others which they had long since deceived. 

Ye fall from your own stedfastness.— 
ἐκπίπτειν. Cf. Gal. v. 4, to fall from, to be ban- 
ished :---στηριγμός, standing fast, stedfastness in 
faith and hope; contrast to v. 16, above. He 
refers to ch. i. 12 where he declared his readers 
to be established in the truth. Roos: ‘The 
state of grace is the fortress. There God Himself 
is the stronghold and castle; Christ the rock on 
which we are builded ; there we are assured by 
the privilege, that all things must work together 
for good to them that love God; there we are, by 
the power of God, kept unto salvation. A Chris- 
tian falls from this his own fortress, if he loses 
grace, and neglecting to watch and pray and 
to attend to the word of God, gradually yields 
to the commission of intentional sins, which, 
whether by some thoroughly matured dogma or 
only by hasty judgments, he erroneously regards 
now in a very different light, and consequently 
excuses or even justifies.”— ’Idiov. Gerhard: 
“‘Not, as though they could of their own strength 
persevere in faith, but because only true be- 
lievers continue firm to the end.”—There is no 
reference here to continuance in communion with 
the Church. 

Ver. 18. But grow in the grace, etc.— 
Gerlach: ‘‘The best preservation is continual 
practice of faith, continual growth in grace and 
knowledge: then we are proof against all as- 
saults.” Similarly Calvin. [‘*Haec unica est 
perseverandi ratio, si assidue progredimur”’.—M. ]; 
avédvere. Cf. 1 Pet. 11, 2; 2 Pet. i.5; Eph. iv. 
15; Col. i. 10. We grow in grace, if we appre- 
hend it with ever increasing faith and keep it, 
and thus we are privileged to enjoy it more and 
more richly. Cf. 1 Pet. v. 10.—Kvupiov belongs 
only to γνώσει not to χάριτι. [This is doubtful, 
since the preposition extends to both. There is 
no difficulty if the subjective force of χάριτι and 
the objective force of γνώσει as connected with 
Christ is brought out. ‘Grow in the grace of 
which Christ is the Author, in the knowledge of 
which Christ is the object.”—M. ].—Great value 
is set here at the close, as before at the begin- 
ning of the Epistle, on the knowledge of the per- 
son, the office, and the benefits of Christ, ef. ch. 
i. 2.— Αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα. The doxology refers to 
Christ in proof of His Divinity. [Alford sug- 
gests Pliny’s letter, “‘hymnus Christo quasi Deo.” 
—M.]. Cf. Jude 25; Rev. i. 6; iv. 9; Eph. iii. 
21.— Εἰς ἡμέραν αἰῶνος not found elsewhere. 
Bengel explains ἡμέρα in contrast with night: 
“Eternity is a day without night, purely and 
perpetually enduring.” Huther: ‘The day in 
which eternity begins as contrasted with time, 
but which day is likewise all eternity itself.” 
The selection of this expression is best explained 
by reference to ch. iii. 8. Eternity counts with 
God as oneday. Augustine: ‘It is only one day, 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. 


but an everlasting day without yesterday to pre- 
cede it, and without to-morrow to follow it; not 
brought forth by the natural sun, which shall 
exist no moré, but by Christ, the Sun of Right- 
eousness.” 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Unbelief is generally blind to the grossest 
contradictions in which it is entangled, even as 
those scoffers do neither see the folly of affirming 
a beginning of the world and to deny the end of 
the world, nor the absurdity of the conclusion: 
“That which has not yet happened until to-day, 
will happen nevermore.” ‘‘God has not made the 
worlds for eternity, like Himself, but they come 
and pass away. In the case of each world there 
was a time when it did not exist, and there will 
be a time, when its place shall not be found. 
How distant soever the day of the destruction of 
our earth may be, when it does come there will 
be men on earth, like ourselves, occupied, as we 
are, with expectations and hopes of a long 
future. He that rolls up the heavens like a gar- 
ment and scatters suns and earths like dust, He 
only is the Lord. Our science will never reach 
the laws which bring about the destruction of 
our earth.” Schleiermacher. ; 

2. Although loving gratitude to Jesus, who gave 
up His life as a sin-offering for us, must after all 
remain our strongest motive to holiness, Scrip- 
ture teaches us that the thought of death and the 
judgment, of the end of the world and eternity, 
should move us to vigilance, seriousness, sober- 
ness, and to be on our guard against the security 
of the world. Ifthe disciples in their time needed 
the pre-announcement of Christ’s coming and 
the end of the world, it is doubly and trebly 
needed in our time. ‘‘Hastening the coming of 
Jesus must not degenerate into an impatient draw- 
ing near of the Judge by murmuring against 
others; we ought the rather be occupied with 
clearing away and preparation in our own affairs, 
in order that we may be found in peace.” Rieger. 

3. “The new earth is the eternal and chief 
scene of the Kingdom of God, Ps. xxxvii.; Rey. 
xxi. It will not be uninhabited. As the nature 
of the earth has been made to correspond and 
conform to man in his fallen and corrupt condi- 
tion, so it will be made to correspond and con- 
form to man purified, recovered and transfigured 
into glorious righteousness. Augustine already 
teaches that the renovated world will answer to 
the bodies of men which will likewise be reno- 
vated.”” Richter. 

4, Even the older theologians held that the day 
of the Lord, in which such great and decisive 
events are to be transacted, in which so many 
millions are to be judged, must not be made to 
denote a day of twelve or twenty-four hours. It 
ought rather to be taken in the sense of a diet 
[In German, Reichs-tag, Land-tag, Viirsten-tag, 
literally, day or diet of an empire, county or 
princes, 7. 6., a congress of the representatives 
of an empire, a country, or of princes. The re- 
ference in the text is to the name of such assem- 
blies, which although referring to a day, continue 
in session for weeks or months. So the day of 
the Lord denotes not a single day, but an-indefi- 
nite period of time.—M.]. 


: CHAP. III. 10-18. 


51 


ΠΟ τ — ee 


5. The Roman Catholic Church charges the 
Scripture with obscurity, and founds her charge 
on ch. iii. 16. In reply we may notice, 

a. The correct interpretation of the passage 
shows that Peter refers immediately to the diffi- 
culty of understanding the subjects treated in 
those Epistles. 

δ. These are difficult to understand because 
they relate to future events, and because the 
soul-man [so called in respect of the predomi- 
nance of the ywy7.—M.] finds it so difficult to 
understand the things of the Spirit. 

c. Chrysostom’s assertion concerning the Scrip- 
ture is irrefutable, viz.: ‘‘Whatever is necessary 
[to be known and to our salvation.—M. ] is plain 
and sure in it, so that all, even the unlearned, 
may understand it.” 

d. There are good reasons why many things 
in the Scriptures are hard to understand. 

‘“‘Many parts of the truth of God must be 
clothed in concealment in order to prevent aver- 
sion to it, to prompt diligent inquiry, and in or- 
der to be reserved as a reward of the fidelity ex- 
hibited in such search.” Rieger. These difficul- 
ties contain a peculiar attraction, a stirring up 
to prayer, a confounding of our vanity, a con- 
cealing of the truth from the eyes of the meddling. 

6. If the genuineness of this Epistle be ad- 
mitted, it affords us a clear proof of the futile 
pretences of the critics of the Tiibingen school in 
respect of the Pauline Epistles, 6. g., of Zeller, 
who says in the Theol. Jahrb., 1846, II.: «Of the 
twenty-seven writings contained in our Canon, 
there is not one for which can be shown creden- 
tials of its origin reaching up to the pretended 
date of its composition.” 

[7. Augustine says concerning the question 
arising from v. 16: ‘Which are the things hard 
to understand in the Epistles of Paul?’ ‘Even 
in the times of the Apostles, certain persons, who 
did not understand some of Paul’s rather obscure 
(sub obscuras) sentences, alleged that he said, 
‘Let us do evil, that good may come,’ because 
he had said, ‘that the law entered in, that sin 
might abound; and where sin abounded, there 
did grace much more abound,’ Rom. iii. 8; v. 
20.—When the Apostle Paul says that a man is 
justified by faith (per fidem) without the works 
of the law, he does not mean thereby, that, when 
a man has received and professed the faith, he 
may despise the works of righteousness; but that 
every one may know that he may be justified by 
faith, although works of the law have not gone 
before his faith. For works follow him that is 


justified, ‘Sequuntur justificatum, non precedunt | 


justificatum.’—Since, however, the notion above 
mentioned had arisen at that time (viz., that 
works were not requisite), the other Apostolic 
Epistles of Peter, John, James and Jude, specially 
contend against that notion; in order to maintain 
earnestly, that faith without works does not profit. 
Indeed Paul himself has defined faith to be not 
any kind of faith by which man believes in God, 
but he defines true faith to be that healthful and 
evangelical faith, whose works proceed from love; 
‘Faith which worketh by love,’ Gal. v. 6. And 
he asserts, that the faith which some men think 
sufficient for salvation is so worthless, that ‘If I 
have faith (he says) so as to remove mountains, and 
have not charity, I am nothing,’ 1 Cor. xiii. 2; and 


doubtless that man’s life is good, where faithful 
love works, for he says, ‘the fulfilling of the law 
is love,’ Rom. xiii. 10.—Evidently, therefore, 
for this reason St. Peter in his second Epistle, 
when he was exhorting to holiness of life, and 
was declaring that this world would pass away, 
and that new heavens and a new earth are looked 
for, which are to be assigned as dwellings to the 
righteous; and when he was admonishing them 
to consider what ought to be their life in this 
world, in order that they may be made meet for 
that future habitation; and being also aware that 
many ungodly men had taken occasion from cer- 
tain rather obscure sentences of the Apostle Paul, 
to be reckless of living well, and to presume of 
salvation by faith, has noted that there are some 
things hard to be understood in St. Paul’s Epistles, 
which men wrested, as they did the other Scriptures, 
to their own destruction; whereas, in truth, that 
Apostle (St. Paul) entertained the same opinions 
as the rest of the Apostles concerning eternal 
salvation, and that it would not be given to any 
but to those who live well. Thus therefore Peter 
writes.” Augustine then quotes this chapter, 
vv. 11-18.—Augustine, de fide et operibus, ὁ. 22, 
ed. Bened. 6, p. 808.—M. } 

[8. Wordsworth, who cites the foregoing pas- 
sage from Augustine,. gives also the following 
useful table of the testimony of prophets and 
Apostles to the authority of Holy Scripture: 

The prophet Malachi closes the Canon of the 
Old Testament by a solemn appeal ‘‘to the law of 
Moses, and to the statutes and judgments.” He 
says: ‘‘Remember them,” (Mal. iv. 4.) 

The Apostle and Evangelist S¢. John closes the 
four gospels with a similar reference. ‘These 
things are written, that ye might believe that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that be- 
lieving, ye might have life through His name,” 
John xx. 31. 

St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentile world, 
closes his Epistles with a testimony to the suffi- 
ciency and inspiration of Holy Scripture: “Abide 
thou in those things which thou hast learned, and 
wert assured of, knowing from whom thou didst 
learn them; and that from a child thou knowest 
the Holy Scriptures, which are the things that are 
able to make thee wise unto salvation, through 
faith that is in Jesus Christ. Every Scripture, 
being divinely inspired, is also profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc- 
tion in righteousness, in order that the man of 
God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto 
every good work,” 2 Tim. iii. 14-17. 

St. Peter, here, in like manner closes his 
Epistles with a similar exhortation, and with a 
warning against perversion of Scripture. 

St. Jude also closes the Catholic Epistles with a 
memento to his readers: ‘‘Remember ye the 
words spoken before by the Apostles of our Lord 
Jesus Christ,” Jude 17. 

Lastly, the Apostle and Evangelist St. John 
closes the Apocalypse with a promise of blessing 
to those who keep its sayings, and a curse on 
those who take from it or add to it, Rev. xxii. 7. 
18. 19. 

Thus the duties of the Christian Church, as 
the Guardian of Holy Scripture, and the duties 
of every member of the Church, as bound to re- 
ceive, to meditate upon, and to obey the written 


52 


word of God, are solemnly inculcated by the fare- 
well voices of prophets and Apostles. 

Prophets and Apostles pass away to another 
and a better world. But the word of God, writ- 
ten by their instrumentality, endureth forever, 
1 Peter i. 25.—M.] 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


There is a twofold day of the Lord, a day of 
His mercy in which He still causes sinners to be 
bidden to His Kingdom by the word (preached), 
2 Cor. vi. 2, and a day of righteousness and wrath 
(Acts xvii. 81), which has its various gradations 
and divisions.—What is necessary to watching 
and being prepared for the coming day of the 
Lord? Luke xii. 39; 1 Thess. v. 6. 4; Matt. xxiv. 
88; Rev. xvi. 15.—We cannot be translated into 
a state of peace, rest and happiness, unless we 
have been purified within by sanctification of the 
Spirit, and there arise a cessation of the reproaches 
and accusations in respect of the transgressions 
of which we were guilty.—If by carelessness or 
indiscretion we contract once more spots or ble- 
mishes, let us hasten to the opened fountain for 
all uncleanness, that we may be cleansed by the 
blood of Jesus.—If all things shall dissolve into 
fire, the idols of secure men will also perish. 
How ill is it with us, if we have nothing that is 
fire-proof!—The only means of escaping the 
terror of the coming of Christ, is a holy walk 
and godliness. The former relates to other men 
and earthly things, the latter to our conduct to- 
wards God.—Who does sufficiently realize the 
end of all things, which has come nigh, and 
which after the death of the body we shall quick- 
ly be made to meet?—According to Tertullian, 
the primitive Christians were wont to pray for a 
postponement of the end. The Church sings: 


Hasten, Lord, the judgment-day, 
Thy glorious countenance display ; 


Εἰ, lieber Herr, eil zum Gericht, 
Lass sel’n Dein herrlich Angesicht ; 


both sentiments are well founded.—The hope of 
that new world, wherein dwelleth perfect right- 
eousness and constant joy, a chief means of con- 
solation among all the trials and afflictions of 
this world.—It is one of the chief aims of be- 
lievers to strive that hereafter they may be found 
without spot before the Lord.—Who will here- 
after be found without spot ?—The long-suffer- 
ing of God our salvation and that of many others. 
—Beautiful example of Peter in his attitude to- 
wards Paul.—Harmony among the teachers of 
the Church is as necessary as the joint operation 
of the members of our body.—To honour the 
gifts of God in others, is to honour God Himself. 
—If the forgery of a testament (will) which dis- 
poses of an earthly inheritance is a great crime, 
how much greater is the sin of those who forge 
and distort the Testament of the Eternal God.— 
The grace of stedfastness should be daily im- 
plored with earnest prayer.—The grace of God 
and the knowledge of Jesus Christ are indissolu- 
bly united.—Christ is duly glorified by us, if we 
acknowledge, praise and publish His benefits. 
Starke :—That must be a fearful day; who 
does not tremble at the birth-pangs of the last 
time? But ye holy ones, rejoice, lift up your 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER. ° 


heads, for your redemption is nigh. Lke. xxi. 
28.—Men, be moderate in providing garments, 
in building palaces, in purchasing precious 
things. Every thing, even the most precious, 
must be consumed by fire in the last day, 1 Cor. 
vii. 30. 31.—The constant recollection of the last 
day, in which Jesus Christ, the righteous Judge, 
will give to every man his due reward, is a pow- 
erful incentive to godliness, Hecl. xii. 18, 14.— 
When the heavens and the earth shall have 
passed away, believers will nevertheless come to 
a most delightful place, although we cannot now 
name it or describe its glory, 1 Thess. iv. 17.— 
Those who do not pursue righteousness and holi- 
ness here, will not be preferred to the abode in 
the new heaven of glory, and still less be permit- 
ted to enjoy its pleasures, 1 Cor. vi. 9.—The 
patience and long-suffering of Christ is our pre- 
servation; for we owe it to His mercy that we 
are not consumed, Lam. iii. 22.—If there are 
dark passages in Holy Scripture, the darkness 
is not intrinsic, but extrinsic, that is, with respect 
to the reader and his weak understanding. But 
it is clear enough in the order of salvation and 
eternal life to silence all excuses, Ps. cxix. 105. 
—If Holy Scripture seems to be dark here and 
there, be not offended at it, and take care not to 
despiseit; learn rather therefrom its subliniity 
and thy lowliness, but ever search more and 
more and persevere in prayer; thus thou shalt 
get more light: as for the rest, it will be re- 
served for the perfect knowledge thou shalt at- 
tain in heaven, 1 Cor. xiii. 12.—A perverted un- 
derstanding goes generally hand in hand with an 
evil will.—Try the spirits, whether they are of 
God; if not, hearken not to them, do not follow 
them, and let them not deceive thee, 1 Cor. vi. 9. 
—A strong fortress needs a vigilant and lion- 
hearted commander, else it will be lost.—Let 
him that standeth take heed lest he fall, 1 Cor. 
x. 12. Watch!—Those who are minded not to 
fall from their own stedfastness, must above all 
things grow in the graceand knowledge of Christ, 
Jno. xvii. 3. 

Srier :—If we may sigh in our own case, Lord, 
come speedily; must we not, on the other hand, 
pray because of the ungodly, Lord, have pa- 
tience. Examples: Abraham, Jonah.—Look at 
all the glory of this poor world with no other 
thought than the knowledge that all is destined 
to pass away ! 

Riecer:—True part of friendship among 
Christians, to warn one another.—All the notices 
of the Holy Scriptures concerning future 
things are given to us that we should be on our 
guard. Those who only use them to gratify their 
curiosity, deprive them all of their best proper- 
ties of salt and light.—The multitude of the 
wicked and the diversity of the instruments 
whereby error is conveyed to men, constitute no 
small power of deception.—How many a posses- 
sion, the objects of doubt, dispute and contra- 
diction will be sayed in the day of eternity ! 

Ricuter:— Ye that are fortified in genuine 
Scripture-truth and in the doctrine in Christ, are 
in the city of refuge, of which the Jewish city of 
refuge was atype! Numb. ΧΧΧΥ͂. 

Kaprr:—In the great process of combustion 
the earth will experience the fate of ore which 
contains silver and gold. The gross, light and 


CHAP. III. 10-18. 


53 


formless parts are consumed, the precious and 
light-giving parts are preserved.—The earth will 
be a great light-bearer corresponding to the 
light of the glorified resurrection bodies.— In 
the passages describing the glorification of the 
earth, it is difficult to determine how much be- 
longs to the renovation of the earth during the 
millennial kingdom, and how much to the glorifi- 
cation of the new earth.—If the earthly is so un- 
clean before the holiness of God that it must be 
burned with fire, how dare we suffer our spirit 
to be linked to the earthly ? 

Lisco :—Of the salvation, which we may attain 
even in this life.—The inner completion of the 
citizens of the kingdom.—The salutation of de- 
parting Christians.—The renovation of the world 
at the eoming of Christ. 

[Suarp:—The reflection that our Lord, who 
came into the world to die for the sins of man- 
kind, is by His resurrection made Judge of the 
world, doth not afford matter of greater terror 
to His enemies, than it does of comfort to His 
friends and followers. How must it revive the 
heart of every honest Christian, and encourage 
him to go on patiently and cheerfully in the ser- 
vice of his Master, notwithstanding the many 
frailties and infirmities under which he la- 
bours; notwithstanding the many slips and errors, 
that after his best endeavours do attend his 
course of life, to consider that He, who is to 
take his accounts at the last day, and to pass 
sentence upon him, is no other than his dear 
Redeemer! If we look upon the judgment to 
come only in this view, that then all the hidden 
works of darkness shall be brought to light; the 
secrets of all hearts be laid open; the actions of 
all mankind strictly examined and scanned; and 
sentence passed upon every one according to his 
works done inthe flesh; if we have no other 
view of the last judgment than only this, it would 
not be very comfortable to the best of us, who 
are all sinners, and therefore cannot plead 
our innocence at that great tribunal. But when 
we consider farther, that it is our Saviour who 
shall then sit upon the throne; that it is our 
Saviour to whom God hath committed the judg- 
ing of us; our Saviour who knows our frame, 
who is sensible of all the difficulties we have to 
conflict with, as having Himself in the days of His 
flesh had sufficient experience of them, ‘‘He being 
in all points tempted like as we are, yet without 
sin ;” and that this Saviour of ours will not judge 
us according to the rigour of the Law, but accord- 
ing to that gracious allowance of the Gospel ; the 
consideration of this will prove an effectual anti- 
dote against all the fears, and disquietudes, and 
despondencies we may lie under upon account of 
our own unworthiness. Let none of us, therefore, 


gion, and honestly endeavour to live up to the 
laws of His Gospel, fright ourselves with such 
thoughts as these: How much shall I, poor 
wretch, dare to appear before the face of my 
Judge at the last day: I, who have so many 
sins to answer for? Let us but go onin the good 
course we are in: let us but hold fast the profes- 
sion of our faith without wavering, and daily apply 
to the throne of grace for strength and assistance 
against our corruptions; and to our prayers let 
us add our sincere endeavours to increase in 
virtue, and the longer we live still to grow better; 
and then I dare say, whatever sins we may have 
been guilty of, we shall not need to have any ap- 
prehension, or fear our condition on account of 
them, when we come to die: but we may with 
confidence appear before the tribunal of our 
Lord; and expect our part in that comfortable 
sentence, which He will at the last day pronounce 
to all His true disciples and followers: ‘‘Come, 
ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom pre- 
pared for you from the foundation of the world,” 
Matt. xxv. 34.—M. ] 

[Cf. on ver. 10. H. Buarr: On the dissolution 
of the world. Sermons, III. 

Vy. 10-14. C. Stmzon: The day of judgment, 
Works, XX., 349. 

Ver. 11. Joun Owen: Providential changes 
an argument for universal holiness. 4 Serm. 
Works XVI., 220. Holiness urged from the 
liability of all things to dissolution. Works, 
(Goold), XVII., 524. 

Ver. 13. Toomas CHatmERs: The new heavens 
and the new earth. Works, VII., 280. 

Vv. 15. 16. W. Paty: Caution recommended 
in the use and application of Scripture language. 
Visit. Serm. Serm. and Tracts, I. 

Cur. WorpswortH: Hulsean Lecture for 1847. 

W. Barrow: On the mysterious doctrines of 
Christianity. Bampton Lecture, 221; Serm., 1., 
173. ‘ 
C. Benson: Origin of Scripture difficulties. 1. 
Existence of Scripture difficulties vindicated. 26. 
Objections to the existence of difficulties in the 
Scriptures as an inspired work considered. 47. 
The existence of difficulties in Scripture not in- 
compatible with their object as a religiously in- 
structive work. 69. Classification of Scripture 
difficulties. 156. Minor difficulties in Genesis. 
Recapitulation and conclusion. Hulsean Lecture 
for 1822, 399. 

T. Curvatuier: The use of historical types 
authorized by Scripture; the advantages attend- 
ing an inquiry into them; the danger of abuse, 
and rules of interpretation. Hulsean Lecture 
for 1826. 35. 

Ver. 18. Jeremy Taytor: Of growth in grace, 
with its proper instruments and signs. 2 Ser- 


that heartily own our Lord Jesus and His reli- | mons.—M. ] 


20 


γῶν a hia eS 


mn eid ων 


ay ' 
bf! Gil 

μξ 

Ϊ j 


; ν ᾿ a! ‘ y 
Τὴ ΕἸ Snes ΔΙ ΠΤ ΝΟΥ͂Ν 9 ῳ UTLEY, 8 yale Wid ὁ 
ἽΝΝ ( tee ΠΝ ΕΌΡΡΗ Lig oy: ioe i yuu ΓῺ 
A ryt haw ἢ; 7 ΙΝ RCE geht Ba: iy πα te plete ΠΝ ane 
iA =i τὸ ia’? Εν ΗΝ ave to τ ( Ἀμμ ης Aare w [ Ἢ ξ 
nA = ae δ τὸ Hf) Wythe i‘ Mire ' i ἐγ a intl ἡ site hg ete Ἢ ὶ 
ha 4 Rie fale’ eats | way! 1 an Che Ad SATO Cyl J ite Me Al » ΠῚ 
let ed) avo Aide? : ἢ = Bet ela 
᾽ Λα Ὶ ἢ Γ ἢ ‘ i 
Mid eee Met (ea ἵδη σφ} sy 
7 Py eee "hi tale aid 
i red an) ta ie Tie | Ἱ ὶ 1 } ᾿ 
τὰ ω ἣ ΠΥ ΤᾺ ! τ 
4 i " 7 ὶ Fe 
Aiba: . ἡ rs ; be ἀν 4 
( i ali ‘ ἀνε ‘e opt oe - ᾿ . ; 
’ f i ᾿νε > rilie £0 2s bay 
a ie 7 4 ᾿ 
ΠΡ Σὰ a ‘ ἵ 
ΡΝ τι ἃ ΤΡ. ee A ον. 
Ὰ ἢ ᾿ 4 ἢ ᾿ A f 
« 1) lid ; f ¥ ἢ 
is @ » ' ΝΠ} 
4.41} Π As Ἢ j 
ΕΝ Ἑ fa ea ta 
Lavp : ἐ } ‘ ΑΙ ‘ 
i ᾽ν oy πε. a ΓΟ 
᾿ all, ἢ iP , hd 
ἈΠ “Μὰ " 2 iA 
ἄν ὕ i 4 4 ‘ | 
Tans Wein oc 
4 ‘* ' 5 2 Lak ι 
' ψ 1 HP cd ᾽ ᾿ iis Ζ ἦν <<? , ν ; ἨΔ nth ‘ined ea 
“ Π Ὅν." ή ! 
π ἀν ᾿ 
ν᾽ ANCE [ 
baie) [ 
wa ἐν vie af ' τ i = 
-. a#i δ τ OTS 4 
“OP's al f\ τἀ ἡ . 
" Δ ἢ ᾿ 
ΜΠ ἵν 
4 “' a Ὑ ' 7 
as Bis 
Υ 
" δὶ ᾽ Υν 
ι 1 7 - . 
qi ea ie > 
7 ἢ ᾿ 
τε | 
SA | 
ΠΟ Lao Υ oP ie 
ae, Mewes 
πὰ, ΜῊ at e ; ne ΕἾ = 
Ἂ ΩΣ ela iba 
“ ' 
(ἰὸς 
a "oh 
PF) . 
ΡΩΝ aM 
ca at 4 o! 
ned ahs hi 
ay M4 
ne oe 
P a) Panny io 
' , fi " 
‘ 
{ 


THE 


EPISTLES GENERAL OF JOHN. 


BY 


KARL’ BRAUNE, D.D., 


GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT, ETC., AT ALTENBURG. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH ADDITIONS ORIGINAL AND 
SELECTED. 


BY 


J. ISIDOR MOMBERT, D.D., 


RECTOR OF ST. JAMES’S CHURCH, LANCASTER, PA. 


NEW YORK: 
CHARLES SCRIBNER, & CO., 654 BROADWAY. 
1867. 


ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867, by 
CHARLES SCRIBNER, 


In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District 
of New York. 


Stereotyped by 


JAS. B. RODGERS, 
PHILADELPHIA, 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOURN. 


INTRODUCTION. 


21, CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 


I, THE EXORDIUM (i. 1-4) states the object of the Apostolic annunciation (i. 2) and its 
purpose (v. 3); the design of the Epistle being superadded (v. 4). 

II. PRINCIPAL PART THE FIRST (i. 5—i. 18): 

IF YE WALK IN THE LIGHT (i. 5— il. 2), IN OBEDIENCE TO HIS LAW IN GENERAL (ii. 3-6), 
AND KEEPING THE COMMANDMENT OF BROTHERLY LOVE IN PARTICULAR (ii. 7-14), NoT BEING 
MISLED BY THE LUSTS (ii. 15-17), AND THE LIES OF THE WORLD (ii. 18-23), YE SHALL HERE- 
AFTER ABIDE BEFORE CHRIST. 

1. The leading thought: ‘ God is light” (i. 5). 

2. The first inference: true fellowship (1. 6, 7). 

3. The second inference: perception and confession of sins (i. 8-10). 

5, The third inference: reconciliation and redemption (ii. 1. 2), 

6. Mark of the walk in the light; obedience to His commandments, especially brotherly love 
(ii. 8-11). 

6. Consolatory warning against love of the world (11. 12-17). 

7, Warning and consolation against antichrist (11. 18-28). Description of his forerunners, 
whose appearing points to the last time (11, 18-23) ;, Exhortation of the faithful to stedfastness 
in their assurance of having the truth and eternal life (11. 24-28). 

III, PRINCIPAL PART THE SECOND (ii. 29—v. 12): 

HE THAT IS BORN AGAIN (OUT) OF (THE BEING or) Gop THE RIGHTEOUS (11. 29), Is A MI- 
RACLE OF His LOVE NOW AND HEREAFTER (ill. 1-3), Is BoUND By His wit (i. 4-10a), EsPE- 
CIALLY TO PRACTISE BROTHERLY LOVE (iil. 10b-18), Is BLESSED BEFORE Him AND In Him 
(iii. 19-24), TRYING, LIKE GoD, THE FALSE SPIRITS (iv. 1-6), HE ENJOYS THE LOVE OF GOD 
AND EXHIBITS BROTHERLY LOVE (iv. 7-21), HE TRIUMPHS OVER THE WORLD AND IS SURE OF 
ETERNAL LIFE (v. 1-12). 

1. The leading thought: He that zs born again of God the Righteous doeth righteousness 
(ii. 29). 

2. The glory of the Sonship (11. 1-3). 

3. The way of God’s children passes through God’s law (iii. 4-10a). 

4. Brotherly love is the sumi-total of the Divine law (iii. 10b-18). 

5. The blessed consequences of our adoption by God (iii. 19-24). 

6. Warning and exhortation with reference to false teachers (iv. 1-6). 


4 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 

7. Brotherly love and Divine love as related to each other on the ground of Christ’s advent 
(iv. 7-21). 

8. The power of faith (v. 1-5), its testimony (v. 6-10) and substance (v. 11. 12). 

IV. THE CONCLUSION (vy. 12-21) rEMINDs US OF THE GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE (V. 13), 
OF THE CONFIDENCE THAT OUR PRAYERS ARE HEARD (Vv. 14. 15), EXHORTS US TO INTERCEDE 
FOR ERRING BRETHREN (vv. 16.17), AND REMINDING US OF THE CERTAINTY OF OUR REDEMP- 
TION FROM SIN (v. 18), DEHORTS US IN VIEW OF THE WORLD (Vv. 19) AND THE REDEEMER (v. 
20) FRoM IDOLATRY (Vv. 21). 

This attempted analysis will have to be justified by the ΤΕ Ν but the situation of the 
question has to be noted here in brief. Formerly nobody thought of seeking and finding in this 
Epistle a well-ordered train of thoughts, or even definite and connected groups of thought. Au- 
gustine (Expos. in Ep. Joh.) contented himself with the remark: “ docutwrus est multa et prope 
omnia de caritate.’ Thus Luther in his two expositions says: “The main substance of this 
first Epistle relates to love.” ‘The Apostle’s object in this Epistle is to teach faith against 
heretics, and true love against the vicious.”—Calvin (in his Commentary on the New Testa- 
ment) says: “doctrinam exhortationibus mistam continet. Disserit enim de eterna Christi det- 
tate, simul de incomparabili, quam mundo patefactus secum attulit, gratia; tum de omnibus in 

 genere beneficiis, ac preesertim inestimabilem divine adoptionis gratiam commendat atque extol- 
lit. Inde swmit exhortandi materiam ; et nunc qnidem in genere pie sancte vivendum admonet, 
nune de caritate precipit. Verum nihil horum continua serie facit; nam sparsim docendo et ex- 
hortando varius est: presertim vero multos est in urgenda fraterna intellectione. Alia quoque 
breviter attingit.’ Lutheran expositors, 6. g., Valentine Léscher and Rappolt thought 
that the Epistle was written without method; the latter described John’s method as aphoristic. 
Not until the 18th century, more definitely since the middle of that century, the programme of 
Joachim Oporin of Géttingen led to progress in the recognition of a plan and order in this 
Epistle. Bengel recognized the exordium (i. 1-4), the ¢ractatio (namely the special one 1. 5- 
iv. 21, and the more general y. 1-12), and the conclusion (v. 13-21).—Liicke with his ten sec- 
tions approached again the aphoristic plan (i. 1-4; 1. 5-1. 2; 11. 3-17; 1. 18-28; 1]. 29-1. 10; 
iii, 10-24; iv. 1-6; iv. 7-v. 5; v. 6-12; v. 13-21).—After v. Hoffmann’s lead (in Schriftbeweis 
2, 2. p. 335-837), who, independently of the exordium (i. 1-4), and the conclusion (v. 18-21), 
divides the Epistle into four parts (i. 1-ἰ|1, 11; 11, 12-28; 11, 29-01. 22; ni, 23-iv. 21+~v. 1- 
17), Luthardt in his programme of 1860 adopted the following division after the exordium: 1. 5- 
ii, 11; ii, 12-ἰ1. 27; ii, 27-11, 24a; iti, 24b-iv. 21; v. 1-21.—Ebrard has six divisions; 1. 1-4; 
i. 5-ii. 6; ii. 7-ii. 29; iii. 1-24; iv. 1-v. 8a; v. 8b-21.—Ewald has only three divisions: i. 1-- 
ii. 17; ii. 18-iv. 6; iv. 7-v. 21—Huther, who, at the suggestion of de Wette, in the first 
edition of his commentary had grouped his divisions according to the three leading thoughts :— 
God is light (i. 5), righteous (ii. 29), love (iv. 8), has abandoned this arrangement as untenable, 
and adopted the following division in the second edition of his work: 1. 5-1. 11; ii. 12-41, 28; 
ii, 29-iii, 22; ili, 23-v. 17, leaving it optional to combine the first and second into one. Dist- 
erdieck has, after the exordium, i. 1-4, two main parts (i. 5i, 28; ii, 29-v. 5), and a double 
conclusion (v. 6-13 and 14-21). 
Cf, Liicke, ch. v. Diisterdieck, 1, p. XI-XXVII.; Huther, p. 3-12. 


2 2. CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE. 


1. The Epistle treats of the following subjects: God is light, love, nghteous ; being of God, 
being God’s child, born of God, being and abiding in God; His Son, who is from the beginning, 
sent by the Father, come in the flesh to destroy the works of the devil, who gave His life for us, 
who is the propitiation for all, for the sins of the whole world, our Paraclete, in whom is eternal 
life, in whom we are and abide, whom we shall see as He is: His Spirit, the Spirit of truth, of 
whom we have: His word, which is eternal; fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father and 
the Son, prayer, intercession, confidence even in the judgment, the faith which overcomes the 
world, love of the brethren even to the point of laying down our lives for them, hope that puri- 
fies itself;—the devil, the spirit of fraud, lying, darkness, antichrist, the world, the lust of the 
eyes, the lust of the flesh, the sin which is formally lawlessness, inwardly unrighteousness, the sin 


@2. CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE. 5 


unto death, being of the devil, the child of the devil, hatred, death, idols—They are almost ex- 
clusively ethical ideas, very few dogmatical, and these are immediately delivered of the ethical 
references they contain, and thus linked into this chain of ethical ideas; e. g., the death of Christ 
(ch. ii. 2; iti, 16). The author hastens in this Epistle through the whole sphere of life, although 
his power to do so is derived from a very small circle of ethical ideas. The advent of the Son of 
God in the flesh, His walk and aim as well as His intercession make up the christology he sets in 
operation, and the life of the Christian, snatched away from the power of the devil by regener- 
ation and united in church-fellowship with the Father and the Son in his way through the world 
with its seductive power in particular things and in groups to the bliss of eternal life after death, 
—this is the sphere of life, the extent of ethical contemplations in this Epistle. We have there- 
fore to deal here as much with faith in the divinity of Christ transposed into life, then with the 
life in Christ, as with the life in Christ theologically thought-out and leading to faith in the di- 
. vinity of Christ. While the Gospel seeks to strengthen and enlarge faith in Jesus (says v. Hoff- 
mann, Schriftbeweis, 2, 2, p. 337), the Epistle shows forth the moral conduct which is necessary 
to faith and only possible to faith. 

2. But our Epistle does not treat these ideas as abstractions of the mind, but as contempla- 
tions of life, experiences of life, as facts and concrete manifestations of life. ‘One cannot tell 
whether the artless ingenuousness of a childlike disposition strikes us more in this Epistle than 
the grave high-tonedness of a thoughtful man, because, in fact, both are intimately blended to- 
gether.” (Disterdieck). The author takes hold of the most weighty thoughts and ideas with 
a sure, light and dexterous hand; he is perfectly master of them, he has experienced them, they 
are his own, he is familiar with them. His object is to bring them home to the consciousness of 
his readers and to make them know them. Hence οἴδατε, οἴδαμεν, δοκιμάζετε, γινώσκετε, iva 
γινώσκωμεν, ἵνα εἰδῆτε. Peculiar is the constant repetition of antithetical sentences, not by way 
of simple antithesis, but so that the predicate of a sentence becomes the subject of the antithesis 
or vice versa; the antithesis only brings out a new feature and thus carries on the thought, ef. 
6. g., 1.6 sq., 8 sq.; 11. 4—vi. 9 sqq. 22, sq.; ii. 3-6. On the use of καὶ instead of δὲ, of ὅτι, iva, 
etc., see Ebrard, p.9. [Hesays: Style and construction remind us strongly of the didactic passages 
of the Gospel, 6. g., Jno. i. 1-18; iii, 27-36, ete. For we recognize in the Epistle the same mode 
of thinking in paratactic periods and the same preference for καὶ in connecting together the differ- 
ent members ofa train of thought (cf. 6. g., 1 Jno, ii. 1-38, where Paul would doubtless have used 
ἐὰν δὲ for καὶ édv, and surely have put αὐτὸς yap ἱλασμός ἐστι for καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστι); cf. his taking 
up again the immediately preceding ὅτε in 1 Jno. ii. 20 with the anaphoras in Jno. 1. 33; iv. 6, 
etc., and in general his preference for the particle ὅτι which is used in so many different senses 
(cf. Jno. xvi. 3. 4. 6.17; also 1 Jno. 1. 12 sqq. with Jno. xvi. 9-11), and the use of the particles 
περὶ, ἵνα, ἀλλὰ, It is clear that the author of the Epistle, like the Evangelist, is in the habit of 
thinking in Hebrew, i. e., Aramaic, and moving within the narrow range of the particles 


Ἵ: 3. Ob ats wb . To this must be added certain other modes of construction peculiar to a 


Hebrew cast of thought, 6. g., the circumlocution of the Genitive by ἐκ, 1 Jno. iv. 18, cf. Jno. i. 
35; vi.8, 70 and many other passages,.the solution of a relative sentence into a conditional 
sentence, (ἐάν τις... . οὐκ ἔστιν ἔν αὐτῷ for ὅστις κ. τ. A.) 1 Jno. ii. 15; iii. 17; cf. Jno. vi. 48, ete. 
The solution of a simple antithesis into a final or causal sentence depending on a word to be sup- 
plied (οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα... .. ) 1 Jno, 11. 19; cf Jno. 1. 8; ii. 28, ete. The circumlocu- 
tion of the Dative of the instrument by ἐν, 1 Jno. ii. 3, ete. » compared with Jno. 1. 26.33; xvi. 80; 

and lastly the frequent use of ϑεωρεῖν and ϑεᾶσθαει, while ὁρᾶν is only used in the Perfect, and cer- 
tain phrases such as τὴν ψυχὴν τιθέναι, Sedo ὁ ἀληθινὸς, ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου ὁ Χριστός, κόσμος λαμβάνει, 
the use of φαίνειν, τεκνία, παιδία, etc.—M.].—John’s method is neither dialectical like that of Paul, 
nor rhetorical like that of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but speculative, contemplative, noting the 
substance of thought without marking the mutual relation of the thoughts themselves. Huther 
sirikingly illustrates the Apostle’s peculiarity by comparing his leading thought to a key-note 
that he strikes and causes to sound through the derivative thoughts until a new key-note is 
struck that leads to a new key. It is the dialectics of contemplation, of experience. “His sim- 
plicity and unadornedness of statement are characteristic: whether he refers to the Divine truths 


6 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


themselves, or addresses his readers by way of admonition or warning, his language preserves 
throughout the same calmness and decision; he never discloses a passionately excited frame of 
mind, but we see every where the reflection of the calmness of a heart resting in blissful peace, 
which makes him sure that the simple statement of the truth is sufficient to commend his words 
to the hearts of his readers. At the same time a firm, manly tone pervades the Epistle, contrary 
to all effeminate sentimentality of which the Apostle is so thoroughly free, that while enforcing 
spirituality of life, he uniformly insists upon the necessity of the exhibition of its truth in deeds 
[i. e., in the life and practice-of men.—M.].—It is also noteworthy that while, on the one hand, 
he addresses his readers as a father speaks to his children, he does not forget, on the other, that 
they are no longer minors and do not require to be taught new things, but that they are his 
equals and joint-possessors with him of all the truth he enunciates and of the life which he wants 
not to create, but to preserve in them.” (Huther). This Epistle, “a deed of sacred love,” “is to 
the most simple reader whose heart has made experience of Christian saving truth, immediately 
intelligible, but also unfathomable to the profoundest Christian thinker, although equally dear 
and refreshing to both. The very method pursued by the author of our Epistle in taking hold 
of Christian living, believing and loving from their profoundest depth, and in their inexhaustible 
wealth, shows with peculiar clearness how the foolishness of God confounds all the wisdom of the 
world; for that which our Epistle declares with almost playful ease, or at least with the perfectly 
artless simplicity of a heart which in its real vital fellowship with the Lord possesses all the riches 
of Divine wisdom and communicates them in holy anxiety of loyve—that which it declares with the 
triumphant assurance and joyful confidence of indisputable truth concerning the source and 
nature of the Christian life, ἡ, e., of eternal life, is infinitely more than all the wisdom of the 
world together can ever reach, and also more than even Christian wisdom can ever think out or 
fathom.” (Diisterdieck). One cannot fail to see how unexcelled gentleness, tenderness and 
thoroughness of love are wonderfully blended with the most decided sternness and deep-cutting 
keenness of judgment. “It does not seem as if only a father were addressing his beloved chil- 
dren, but as if a glorified saint were speaking to men from a higher World. The doctrine of 
heavenly love, calmly active, with indefatigable zeal essaying everything and never exhausting 
itself, has in no writing been so perfectly demonstrated as in this.” (Ewald). With such testi- 
monies, triumphantly corroborated by the exposition, we may take comfort under the charges 
that the confusion of the Epistle betrays the senility of its author, who, either with planless ab- 
ruptness, wanders from a thought he had suggested, or falls into the eternal sameness of an old 
man (3. G. Lange, Eichhorn, Ziegler). And the reproach of the master of the Tiibingen school, 
of v. Baur, that the Epistle lacks the freshness of direct life, and that the tenderness and profound 
thoroughness of the Johannean mode of contemplation and statement had too much resolved 
themselves into a*tone childishly effeminate, dissolving in indefiniteness, marked by constant 
repetitions and a lack of logical energy, may be met by Hilgenfeld’s declaration that this Epistle 
is one of the most beautiful writings of the New Testament, that it is peculiarly rich and original 
with reference to the subjective, intensive life of Christianity, and that the fresh, living and 
attractive character of the Epistle consists just in the marked preference with which it intro- 
duces us into the inward experience of the true Christian life. ; 

[After all this, we may well say with Ebrard to the commentator and‘his readers: “Put off 
thy shoes from off ‘thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.”—M.] 


23. THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE, 


If we glance αὖ the testimony of the ancient Church and pay close attention to the state- 
ments of the witnesses respecting the author of this Hpistle, all doubt must vanish that the 
Apostle St. John was, without contradiction, considered to have been its author. The Apostolic 
Fathers contain several allusions and references to our Epistle. Ebrard gives them along with 
similar matter in the Introduction to his Commentary, pp. 14-16. [The paragraphs in question, 
besides the quotation from Polycarp, as given below, are these: Papias knew and used this 
Epistle: Κέχρηται δ᾽ ὁ αὐτὸς [Papias] μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς προτέρας ᾿Ιωάννου ἐπιστολῆς. v. Euseb. H. 


ὃ 3. THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE. 7 


Ἐν, ILL., 39.—The anonymous Epistle to Diognetus, written about the time of Justin Martyr, 
contains many passages, which imply an unquestionable dependence on this Epistle. Cf. Cap., 
X., with 1 Jno, iv. 9-11; XII. with 1 Jno. ii, 18~25; iv. 4-6; v. 6-12; also Cap., V.-VIL; XI. 
The Epistle of Vienna and Lyons [Hused., V., 1] contains an unmistakable allusion to 1 Jno. iii. 
16; ὁ διὰ τοῦ πληρώματος τῆς ἀγάπης ἐνεδείξατο, εὐδοχήσας ὑπέρ τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἀπολογίας καὶ τὴν 
ἑατοῦ ϑεῖναι ψυχήν.---ΟΔΥΡοογαΐθΒ, a Gnostic, who flourished about the beginning of the second 
century at Alexandria, sought to use for his purpose, 1 Jno, y. 19. “ Mundus in maligno positus 
est,” see Origen i Genes., cap. I., Opp., I. p. 23,—M.].—The most important testimony is that 
of Polycarp, the disciple of John, who suffered martyrdom, A. D. 168, as found in his Epistle to 
the Philippians c. vil.: πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἄν μὴ ὁμολογῇ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι ἀντίχριστὸς ἐστι; 
ΠΟ which Ebrard calls “an unmistakably clear reminiscence’’, and Diisterdieck “a free use of Jno. 
iy, 2. 3,”—Very important is the testimony of the Canon of the New Testament, which was 
edited by Muratori about a hundred years ago and is known as the Muratorian Canon. Accord- 
ing to Wieseler’s careful investigation (see Studien wnd Kritiken, 1847, pp. 815-857) it was 
written A, D. 170 by a Church-teacher for the purpose of instructing catechumens in the docu- 
ments of the Christian faith which were received in his Church. We read, thereafter, notices of 
the fourth Gospel and its origin: “ Quid ergo mirum, ei Johannes tam constanter singula etiam in 
epistolis suis proferat, dicens in semet ipso (1 Jno. i. 1): que vidimus oculis nostris et auribus audivimus 
et manus nostre palpaverunt, haec scripsimus’; sic enim non solum visorem, sed et auditorem, sed et 
scriptorem omnium mirabilium domine per ordinem profitetur”? And again after an enumeration of 
the Pauline Epistles: ‘“ Hpistole sane Jude et superscripti Johannes due in Catholica habentur.”’ 
This reference to the two Epistles of St. John must not be construed as denoting either the 
second and third, as if the citation from the first Epistle rendered further reference to it unne- 
cessary (Schleiermacher, Lindner and Ebrard in Herzog’s R. £., p. 98), or the first and the third, 
the second being regarded as an appendix to the first (Hug), but the first and the second, as 
Catholic Epistles proper, the second Epistle, addressed to the κυρία, being considered to have 
been written not for a single person, but for a congregation; it is consequently the third Epistle: 
which is not mentioned, not because its Johannean authorship was called in question, but because: 
it was regarded as less instructive and as a private letter addressed to an individual. 

The Peschito, belonging to the same age as the Muratorian fragment, also bears witness to the- 
authenticity of this Epistle——Quotations from this Epistle grow more frequent after the begin- 
ning of the third century in the writings of Irenzus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen. 
and Cyprian.—It is very probable, but without much importance, that the Alogi, who, on the 
authority of Epiphanius, rejected the Gospel and Revelation of St. John, rejected also the first; 
Epistle. Nor can it be of any moment that Marcion and his followers did not enumerate the 
writings of John in their Canon. Eusebius, whose defects in statement, pompous style, and dis- 
jointed treatment are considerably excelled and counterbalanced by his comprehensive and 
laborious historical researches, includes the Epistle among the Homologowmenu (H. E.,, IIl., 
24, 25), and Jerome (de viris Wlust. ὁ. 9) says: “ab wniversis ecclesiasticis viris probatur.’—Most 
excellent is also on this point Tischendorf’s short but weighty essay: “ Wann wurden unsere 
Lvangelen verfasst?” Leipzig, 1865. [See also my article on the Sources of the Gospels in the 
Bibliotheca Sacra, July and October numbers, 1866.—M.] 

2. This chain of external evidence is confirmed by the internal evidence arising from the 
comparison of the Epistle with the Gospel of St. John. Both the range of thoughts and their 
mode of expression, as well as the diction, are the same in the first Epistle and in the Gospel, 
and the remarks on the former in @ 2., 1. 2, may and must be applied to the latter with shght 
modifications. Cf. Grimm: On the ἜΣ and first Epistle of St. John as Works of the same 
Author in Studien und Kritiken, 1847, p. 171-181, and On the first Epistle and its relation to 
the fourth Gospel, ibid., 1849, p. 269-303.—“As in the Gospel we see here the author retire to 
the background, unwilling to speak of himself and still less to support any thing by the weight 
of his name and reputation, although the reader meets him here not as the calm narrator, but as 
an epistolary writer, as exhorter and teacher, as an Apostle, and moreover as the only surviving 
Apostle. It is the same delicacy and diffidence, the same lofty calmness and composure, and 
especially the same truly Christian modesty that cause him to retire to the background as am 


8 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Apostle and to say altogether so little of himself: he only desires to counsel and warn, and to 
remind his readers of the sublime truth they have once acquired; and the higher he stands the 
less he is disposed to humble ‘the brethren’ by his great authority and directions. But he 
knew who he was, and every word tells plainly that he only could thus speak, counsel and warn. 
The unique consciousness, which an Apostle, as he grew older, could carry within himself, and 
which he, once the favourite disciple, had in a peculiar measure, the calm superiority, clearness 
and decision in thinking on Christian subjects, the rich experience of a long life, steeled in the 
victorious struggle with every unchristian element, and a glowing language lying concealed under 
this calmness, which makes us feel intuitively that it does not in vain commend to us love as 
the highest attainment of Christianity—all this coincides so remarkably in this Epistle, that 
every reader of that period, probably without any further intimation, might readily determine 
who he was. But where the connection required it, the author intimates with manifest plain- 
ness that he once stood in the nearest possible relations to Jesus (i. 1-3; y. 3-6; iv. 16), precise- 
ly as he is wont to express himself in similar circumstances in the Gospel; and all this is so art- 
less and simple, so entirely without the faintest trace of imitation in either case, that nobody can 
fail to perceive that the selfsame author and Apostle must have composed both writings.” 
(Ewald, Die Johann. Schriften, I., p. 431 sq.). Add to this the bold self-testimony with the 
impress of truth, ch. iv. 6—Surprising is the number of parallel passages in the two writings: 


FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
Ch, 1.1. 2. Ch. 1.1. 2. 14. 
4, xy its ' 
xvi. 24. 
10. v. 38. 
H. 1:2, xiv. 16, 
xi. 51. 52. 
xiii. 15. 34. 85, 
4-6, xiv. 21-24. 
xv. 10. 
8. xiii, 34. 
11. xii. 35. 
23. xv. 23, 24, 
v. 24, 
27. xiv. 26. 
ii, 1. xvii. 25. 
8. vill. 44, 
10. vill. 47. 
13-15, v. 24, 88. 
xv. 18. 19, 
16. xv. 12. 18. 
22. ix. 3l., 
xvi. 23, 
iv. 5. 6. 111, 81. 
xy. 19, 
vili, 47. 
9 iii. 16 
16 vi. 69. 
v. 3.4 xiv. 15. 
xvi, 33. 
9 v. 36. 
12 iii, 36, 
xiv. 6 
13 xx. 81 


ἶ ὃ 8. THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE. S 
ee 
Considerably more than half of the thirty-five passages taken from the Gospel form part of 
the last sayings of Christ in ch. xii-xvii, There the receptivity of the witness was preéminently 
necessary, and there it showed its strength; where he made the most vital surrender of himself, 
there he received the most permanent impressions. This is thoroughly Johannean. Compare 
on this subject especially Lange, 716 Gospel of John, 32 1-3, Vol. IV., p. 1 sqq. German edition. 
3. The genuineness of this Epistle as that of an Apostle was maintained by the Church with- 
out all contradiction until Joseph Scaliger boldly enunciated the notion: “tres epistolee Johannis 
non sunt Apostoli Johannis.” Then there arose at the time of the atomic criticism of Rational- 
ism 8. G. Lange (Die Schriften des Johannes tibersetzt wnd erklért, Vol. IIL, p- 4 sqq.), who 
although not venturing to assault the external evidence, made the subject matter of the Epistle 
the starting-point of his criticisms, and raised the doubt whether the Epistle was worthy of an 
Apostle; his strictures were as follows: that the Epistle lacked individual and local character, 
that its agreement with the Gospel gave rise to the suspicion of timid imitation and slavish copy- 
ing; that John, before the destruction of Jerusalem, was not old enough to produce such a work 
of senility; that he may not have mentioned the destruction of J erusalem, because it was a tick- 
lsh point, ete—Bretschneider (Probahilia) is a more important opponent; but he lived to be- 
come convinced of the groundlessness of his doubts of the authenticity of John’s writings. Clau- 
dius ( Uransichten des Christenthums), who maintained that the Epistle was the fabrication of a 
Jewish Christian, and Horst (in Henke’s Museum fiir Religionswissenschaft von 1803) are only 
mentioned on account of their boldness, and Paulus (Die drei Lehrbriefe des Johannes wortgetreu 
mit erldéuternden Zwischensdtzen tibersetzt und nach philologisch-notiologischer Methode erkldrt. Mit 
exegetisch-Kirchenhistorischen Nachweisungen tiber eine sittenverderbliche magisch-persische Gnosis, 
gegen welche diese Briefe warnen. 1829. [The three doctrinal Epistles of John literally translated 
with explanatory parentheses, and expounded after the philologico-notiological method. With 
exegetico-Church-historical references to an immoral magico-Persian Gnosis, of which these 
Epistles give warning. 1829.—This title is enough to awe even confirmed book-worms.—M.]), 
who like Bretschneider believed the Presbyter Johannes to have been the author of this Epistle, 
is referred to simply because of the manner in which he maltreated it. 

4, More important are the assaults of the Tiibingen school on the authenticity of our Epis- 
tle. It starts with the Hegelian idea of God, which makes man truly the other part of God; we 
may say that the followers of that school have already applied Darwin’s theory to their concep- 
tion of history: Christianity did not come down from heaven ina, finished form, involves no 
miracle or privilege of certain persons, but originated in the inmost being of the Spirit, in the 
natural consciousness of man by a genuine historical development, without revelation or inspira- 
tion by a process in agreement with the general laws of historical development. The real origi- 
nal Christianity was a Judaism only slightly modified by Christ, quite Ebionite as exhibited by 
Peter and John in the Apocalypse, or Gentile-Christian as exhibited by Paul (Epistles to the Ro- 
mans, Corinthians and Galatians), who, to be sure, went further in the dogma of the law. Hence 
there arose a contention between him and the other Apostles, in which men, well qualified to 
effect an understanding and geconciliation among the contending parties, advanced to Christian 
views and composed the other writings of the New Testament, which simply amount to unhis- 
torical party-writings [German: Tendenzchrift, 7. e., a writing of a certain tendency favouring 
the distinctive views of a party.—M.], not without legends, and were written about the middle 
of the second century. This applies also to our Epistle. At first Késtlin ( Lehrbegriff des Ev., 
etc., 1843) and Georgii (Theol. Jahrbticher, 1845) pronounced for the identity of the author of 
the Epistles and that of the Gospel; then Zeller, who as late as 1842 had presupposed the iden- 
tity of the author of both writings, was the first to declare, in a review of Késtlin’s work, that 
it was conceivable that the Epistles and the Gospel were written by different authors. This 
view was raised by Baur, the leader of that school (in Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1848), to apo- 
dictical certainty, and according to him the Epistle is a weak imitation of the Gospel, whereas 
Hilgenfeld (Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis, 1849, and Theol. Jahrbticher, 1855) 
identified and proved the Epistle to be a splendid type of the Gospel_—Baur starts on the un- 
founded supposition that the author manifests the intentional and most studious anxiety (1 John 
1. 1-3) to be regarded as identical with the author of the Gospel; in ch. y. 6-9, he sees, owing to 


10 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 

ee ee eee 

an exegetical misunderstanding, a wanton attempt of drawing a distinction between Divine and 
human testimony, and shows by this the unskilful imitation of the author. From a comparison 
of the eschatological statements of the Epistle (ch. ii. 18-23; iii. 2) with those of the Gospel (ch. 
xiv. 3. 18 sq. 23; xvi. 16. 22), and of 1 John v. 6, with John xix. 34, he infers that the mode of 
contemplation in the Epistle is more material and outward than that of the Gospel, which he 
considers to be more ideal and spiritual. The idea of the atonement, ἱλασμός (ch. 1. 7; 11. 2; iv. 
10), and that of the interceding High Priest, παράκλητος, he thinks more suited to the range of 
ideas peculiar to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and foreign to that of the Gospel. Baur, lastly, 
considers the Epistle to be wholly Montanistic, because it describes the fellowship of Christians 
as holy and sinless, makes mention of the χρίσμα, and draws an unevangelical distinction between 
venial and mortal sins. But our Epistle does not distinguish a higher class of spiritual Christians 
from the lower classes of other Christians, the Psychici, but believing Christians from an unholy 
world; the Epistle does not, nor may we refer the χρίσμα to the baptismal anointing which is 
mentioned for the first time by Tertullian; and with respect to the mortal sins enumerated by 
Tertullian (homicidium, idolatria, fraus, necatio, blasphemia, machia et fornicatio et si qua alia violatio 
templi dei), Baur ought not to have made a most arbitrary selection of three, viz., idolatry (ch. v. 
21; iii. 4), murder (iii. 15), adultery or fornication (from the inscription ad Parthos, corrupted 
from πρὸς παρθένους), and still less to have remarked that the author does not refer to the outward 
acts, but to the inward, moral disposition; for that is not Montanistic. If Hilgenfeld considers 
(1 John i. 5. 7) the statement that God is φῶς, ἐν τῷ φωτί, too material and local [rdwmiich, lite- 
rally, relating to space.—M.], turns 1 John iii. 4, where sin is called ἀνομία, and 1 John ii. 7. 8, 
where love is referred to as an old commandment, into an argument for a friendly relation to the 
Mosaic law, and maintains that the idea of a personal Logos, clearly expressed in the Gospel, is 
unknown to the Epistle, although ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ is considered as identical with the Logos, and 
ἡ ζωή in Christ as hypostatical,—that the Holy Ghost is not described as a Person because He is 
called χρίσμα, and not παράκλητος, although He is called τὸ μαρτυροῦν (1 John v. 6), that the ex- 
hortation, addressed to the readers of the Epistle, to a conduct enabling them to look for and pass 
through the ordeal of the judgment without being ashamed, militates against the idea of the 
Gospel, which does not speak of the judgment of believers,—all this is as untenable on exegetical 
grounds as the recognition of Gnostical elements belonging to the post-Apostolical age in the 
idea of the σπέρμα (iii. 9), the conception of the χρίσμα, and the thought that God ought not to be 
feared, but only to be loved (ch. iv. 18.19), Anointing as an Old Testament type suggested 
χρίσμα in the antithesis of the Christian and ἀντίχριστος, the representation of being born of God 
suggested the σπέρμα, and in that representation the fundamental view of an atonement for all 
the sins of all mankind prohibits any reference to a dualistic separation and to a metaphysical 
reason without ethical life-process, and the love of God is not a Gnostical discovery, but a purely 
Christian and Divine command. Of what avail is all the praise which Hilgenfeld awards to the 
first Epistle of John (for he solely refers to it without adverting to the second and third Epistles, 
although the.title of his book refers to Hpistles) and its author, in calling him a great independent 
thinker, if he nevertheless regards him as blindly echoing the Gnostic system of his time, and 
having only given a clear, practical impress to its speculative features, and considers the Epistle 
as less spiritual, and on that account older than the Gospel; and how can he accuse those who 
reject a pseudo-epigraphical literature of the New Testament, of overlooking the important cir- 
cumstance that the modern idea of literary property was wanting in primitive Christian times; 
it has not been overlooked that the modern idea was then wanting, but even more than that, 
there was wanting all license of any forger. The pretensions of the Tubingen school are by no 
means borne out by what*it gives us. Cf. Dietlein (Urchristenthum). Disterdieck, Vol. L, p. 
XXXV—CI. Huther, p. 19-28; Brickner in de Wette’s Handbuch, p. 316 sqq. 


24. THE READERS OF THE EPISTLE. 
1, Augustine has a literal quotation of 1 Jno. iii. 2, which he introduces thus: Quod die- 
tum est ab Joanne in epistola ad Parthos (Quaest. vang. ii. 39). Possidius in his indiculus 
operum 8. Augustini cites the tractates on our Epistles as “de ep. ad Parthos sermones decem,” 


25. THE FORM OF THE EPISTLE. 11 


Thus has this designation found its way at least into the Benedictine edition of the works of 
Augustine, and even into some Latin codices and several other writings (Vigilius Tapsensis, 
Cassiodorus, Beda). Grotius already knew how to explain and apply it: “ Vocata olim fuit epistola 
ad Parthos, i. e., ad Judeas Christum professos, qui non sub Romanorum, sed Parthorum vivebant 
imperio in locis trans Euphratem, ubi ingens erat Judeorum multitudo, ut Nearde, Nisibi et aliis in 
locis. Et hanecausam puto, cur hee epistola neque in fronte nomen titulumque Apostoli, neque in fine 
salutationes apostolict moris contineat, quia nimirum in terras hostiles Romanis haec epistola per merca- 
tores Ephesios mittebatur multumque nocere Christianis poterat, si deprehensum fuisset hoe quanquam in- 
nocens litterarum commercium.” 

Clement of Alexandria (opera ed. Potter,fragm. 1011) observes that the second Epistle was 
addressed ad virgines (see Introduction to the second Epistle). It is easy to see how πρὸς παρ- 
θένους may have been wrongly transcribed πρὸς πάρθους, and thus originated the corrupted sub- 
scription of the second Epistle, which, being used as its superscription, may have been mistaken 
for the subscription of the first Epistle and connected with it, as Hug conjectures. Or, as in a 
codex of the Apocalypse, the subscription of the first and second Epistles may have read Ἰωάννου 
after παρθένου, and thus have given rise to the above mutilation and designation (so Gieseler, 
eel. Hist. I., p. 1389). There is evidently a mistake somewhere, and since Hug’s supposition 
is even more simple than Gieseler’s, it seems to commend itself as giving the solution of the 
riddle. The matter is not furthered if we suppose with Paulus of Heidelberg, that this sub- 
scription originated in πρὸς πάντας, or conjecture a corrupted reading in Augustine of ad Pathmios 
(Serrarius), ad sparsos (Wegscheider), adpertius (Semler). In this way, it is clear, we shall 
never find the readers for whom our Epistle was intended. 

2. Equally inadmissible is the inference of Benson that ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς (ch. ii. 7. 18. 14) points 
to a circle of readers in Judea, and that of Lightfoot who, connecting the Gaius, mentioned 3 
Jno. 1, with the Gaius 1 Cor. i. 14, thinks of Corinth as the Church to which the Epistle was 
sent. The Epistle is not addressed to any one Church in particular; and this accounts for the 
absence of detailed notices of a concrete or personal character. The circumstance, that while the 
Epistle contains only slight and incidental references to representations peculiar to the Old Tes- 
tament, it expressly denounces idbdlatry, gives countenance to Diisterdieck’s shrewd conjecture 
(ξ 7), that it was addressed to Gentile Christian Churches; moreover, the author’s contrasting 
the knowledge of the true God in Jesus Christ, which includes ‘eternal life, with the dazzling 
form of paganism and an antichristian Gnosis, is in perfect agreement with the historical notice 
that John selected Asia Minor as the sphere of his labours, if we have to look to that province 
for the Churches to whom this encyclical Epistle was sent. But we must. not think of a single 
Church, least of all of the Church at Ephesus (Hug), but of several Churches “of John’s Ephesian 
circle of Churches” (Liicke), [ἡ. e., Churches within the diocese of Ephesus, as we should say, 
Churches under the especial jurisdiction of John—M.], perhaps of all Churches to whom the 
personal labours of John extended (Huther). 


25. THE FORM OF THE EPISTLE. 


1, Given an encyclical or circular Epistle, and it is manifest that it may and does lack fea- 
tures which generally belong to other Epistles: i. e., the special address and particular saluta- 
tions. Thus the common epistolary address is wanting in the Epistle to the Hebrews, while the 
Epistle of James is without the customary final salutations. Barring this circumstance all the 
requirements of the epistolary form are complied with: γράφω occurs seven times, γράφωμεν once, 
ἔγραψα six times; ὑμῖν, ἐν ὑμῖν, ὑμεῖς and ὑμᾶς occur thirty-six times, the address τεκνία and παιδία 
ten times, ἀγαπητοί six times, πατέρες and νεανίσκοι twice each, adeAdot once. The exordium (ch. 1. 
1-4) may be regarded with Calov (Biblia N. Τ' illustrata, Tom., II., p. 1582. Francof. 1676), 
who follows Estius, as founded on the usual form of an epistolary address. Liicke regards it as 
the amplification of such an address. The view of Baronius (Annal. Eccl. an. 99, II., p. 964) 
that the address, like a modern envelope, may have been lost, is as unnecessary as unfounded, 
The spirit of the Epistle corresponds with its form, the former being thus capitally described by 
Bacon: “ Epistola habent plus nativi sensus guam orationes; plus etiam maturitatis quam colloquia 


12 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN 


subita.” Hence Diisterdieck very correctly remarks (I., p. X.) : “The whole writing rests so 
thoroughly on a living, personal relation between the author and his readers, the pertinence of 
the written exhortation is so absolutely personal, that this ground is sufficient to make us con- 
sider the writing as a genuine Epistle. This epistolary character belongs moreover to the whole 
keeping and structure of the short writing. With all logical order, there reigns in it that free 
and easy naturalness and unconstraint of statement, which suits the immediate interest and hor- 
tatory tendency of an Epistle, while the strict, progressive dialectical development, peculiar to 
a treatise or homily, is held back.” 

2. Receiving this writing with the ancient Church as an Epistle of John, is therefore every 
way commendable. Heidegger (Enchiridion Bibl., p. 986) advanced his new view as late as the 
end of the seventeenth century: “Accedit, quod scriptum hoe, licet epistola insigniatur, censeri tamen 
possit brevis quedam Christiane doctrine epitome et evangelii a Johanne scripti succinctum quoddam 
enchiridion, cui adhortationes quedam pro.communi totius ecclesie conditione adjecte sunt. Non enim, 
ut relique epistole, inscriptione ac salutatione inchoatur, neque etiam salutatione et voto clauditur.” Al- 
though Bengel calls the writing epistola, he rather regards it as a libellus. Michaelis (Zntrod., p. 
1520) calls it a treatise. Storr ( Ueber den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und Briefe Jo- 
hannis, pp. 384. 401 sq.) calls it the polemical, and Berger ( Versuch einer moralischen Hinleitung 
ms NV. T, 11., p, 179 sq.) the practical part of the Gospel; while Reuss (Die Geschichte der 
_ Heiligen Schriften, N. T,, p. 217) describes it as “a homiletical essay, at the most a pastoral — 
Epistle, the readers being present.” Augusti calls the Epistle an anacephalaosis of the Gospel, 
and Hug, Fromman (Studien und Krit., 1840, p. 853), Thiersch (Versuch zur Herstellung des histo- 
rischen Standpunkts, p.'78, und die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter, p. 266) and especially. Ebrard 
(Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte, p. 148, and Comment., pp. 29-39) designate it as a companion- 
writing of the Gospel, or regard it in the light of a preface as an epistola dedicatoria without an 
independent designation per se, but we ought to have some notice or reference to that effect. 
This view certainly does not explain the want of an address, salutation and benediction, and we 
shall show in @ 8, 3 that such a view is impossible. 


26. RELATIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CHURCHES. 


1. The external relations cannot have been peculiarly difficult; there is no reference what- 
soever to persecutions, like those to which the Christians were exposed either by the Jews as in 
the time of Paul, or by Nero at Rome (A.D. 54-68), or at the end of Domitian’s reign (A.D. 81-- 
96), and under that of Trajan (A.D. 98-117), and his proconsul Pliny in Bithynia. The Epistle 
speaks of the hatred of the world (ὁ κόσμος μισεῖ ὑμᾶς, ch. iii. 13), The notices of the victory of 
young men (ch. ii, 13. 14, νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν) and the victory over the world (v. 4, ἡ νίκη ἡ νική- 
σασα τὸν κόσμον, ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν), point rather to spiritual struggles, in the Church and in the indi- 
viduals themselves; but they afforded opportunity for a reference to and description of external 
conflicts. The external relations must have been, on the whole, favourable; at least external 
fears cannot have been of sufficient moment to be taken into account (cf. Ewald, p. 437 sq.).. 

2. The disquiet and motion reigning within, which characterize this Epistle, point to rest 
without. The Churches were not necessitated to cling together and to remain closed by them- 
selves. The writing is deficient in words of consolation, but not in exhortations to brotherly 
love, to stedfastness in the fellowship of faith and life with the Father and the Son, in cautions 
against the seductions of worldly lusts and false brethren. The time of their first enthusiasm 
has passed; their zeal and love lack the vibration produced by the weighty pendulum of obstacles 
and enmity. The reaction of evil from without is followed by the more pernicious reaction from 
within; falling away has begun without a violent crisis; the energy of evil, as well as of good, 
has abated. . The first generation which had torn loose from idolatry and the world, and earnestly 
laid hold of God in Christ, has died; a showy and nominal Christianity has crept into the Churches, 
Believers, like Gaius, exhibit all the Christian virtues (3 John 5. 6), old men full of Christian 
wisdom, young men full of vigorous aims (1 John ii. 13. 14), are pleasing evidences of the Chris- 
tian life. But ambition spreads itself, as in Diotrephes (3 John 9. 10), the lusts of the world 
assert their claims (1 John ii, 15-17), false brethren arise, and not only tear themselves, but also 


RELATIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CHURCHES. ad 


others from the true fellowship (ch. ii. 18 sq.; iii. 7; iv. 1 sqq.). And the influences from the 
world are rather those of pagan frivolity, than those of Judaistic narrowness. 

3. The heresy, against which the Epistle is directed, is a pagan Docetism. Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God! Jesus is the incarnate Son of God! The Epistle, from the beginning 
to the end, raises high and holds fast confession as the banner under which we must fight and 
are sure of victory, thus pointing to Docetism, which had not yet developed into a system, but 
had appeared as a tendency, as is certified by Cerinthus, the contemporary of John, For Cerin- 
thus held that Jesus was the son of Joseph, with whom the Logos united at His baptism, but 
left Him again after His crucifixion. Cf. Dorner, Entwickelungsgeschichte, I.,314sqq. Pressensé, 
Hist. of the First Three Centuries, Τ1., p. 233 sqq. The Epistle insists upon knowing and know- 
ledge in opposition to the false spiritualistic Gnosis which had already begun with Docetism and 
opposed to the ergism of Judaism a syncretistic philosophy, and set in motion an ingenious 
theory operating intellectually, in the place of the work of redemption operating ethically. 

In opposition to the pagan Dualism, which is the basis of Docetism in fixing metaphysically 
the antinomy of spirit and matter, the Epistle points to the opposites of light and darkness, of 
truth and falsehood, of the world with the evil oney and God with His Son and His children, op- 
posites which are altogether ethical and in the fusion of an ethical life-process, so that the op- 
posing element is overcome, dissolved and rejected, or may and shall be saved—We do not yet 
find the full-blown Gnosticism, nor yet the rigid Docetism (as maintained by Liicke, Sander and 
Thiersch), nor any longer the antinomism combated by Paul, nor yet the later antinomism of the 
Gnostics (as Hilgenfeld assumes). Nor do we find the least trace of opposition to the disciples. of 
John the Baptist, whom Paul met at Ephesus (Acts xix. 1 sqq.), whom John may have had re- 
gard to in his Gospel (John iii. 22-36), and a reference to whom was πο. by the very lan- 
guage of this Epistle (1 John v. 6. 8). 

4, The Epistle knows no other division of the Church than that by age, fathers and young 
men (1 John ii. 12-14). But John gives distinct prominence to the circumstance that every one 
receives the unction of the Holy Ghost (1 John 11. 20. 27); he joins his readers in the confession 
of sins (1 John i. 8. 9), does not set himself above his brethren, and acknowledges the inalienable 
rights of Christians to try the spirits (1 John iv. 1), as well as their own responsibility to the 
Lord (1 John ii. 28). 

[The heresy of Cerinthus and other heretics is thus described by Irenzus im his great work 
against heresy: 

“Kt Cerinthus autem quidam in Asia non a primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a vir- 
tute quadam valde separata et distanto ab ea principalitate, que est super universa, et ignorante eum, 
qui est super omnia, Deum. Jesum autem, subjecit, non ex virgine natum, (impossibile enim hoc ei 
visum est) fuisse autem eum Joseph et Marie filium similiter ut reliqui omnes homines, et plus po- 
tuisse justitia et prudentia et sapientia ab hominibus. Et post baptismum descendisse in eum ab ea prin- 
cipalitate, que est super omnia, Christum figura columbe: et tune annuntiasse incognitum patrem et vir- 
tutes perfecisse; in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu, et Jesum passum esse et resur- 
reaisse; Christum autem impassibilem perseverasse, existentem spiritualem.” (Adv. Her. 1, 26). 

“Hane fidem annuntians Joannes Domini discipulus, volens per evangelio annuntiationem 
auferre ewm qui ἃ Cerintho wmseminatus erat hominibus errorem, ut confunderet eos et suaderet 
quoniam unus Deus qui omnia fecit per Verbum suum; et non, guemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum, 
quidem fabricatorem, aliwm autem Patrem Domini; et aliwm quidem fabricatoris filium, alterum 
vero de supertoribus Christum, quem et impassibilem perseverasse, descendentem in Jesum filium 
fabricatoris, et iterum revolasse in suum Pleroma; et initium quidem esse Monogenem, Logon aw- 
tem verum filum Unigeniti ; et eam conditionem, que est secundum nos, non ἃ primo Deo factam, 
sed ἃ virtute aliqua valdé deorsum subjecta, et abscissa ab eorum communicatione, quae sunt in- 
visibilia et innominabilia. Abstulit autem ἃ nobis dissensiones omnes tpse Joannes dicens, In hoe 
mundo erat et mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit. In sua propria venit, 
et sul eum non receperunt. Secundum autem Marcionem et eos, qui similes sunt ei, neque mun- 
dus per eum factus est; neque in sua venit, sed in aliena; secundim autem quosdam Gnosticorum 
ab angelis factus est iste mundus, et non per Verbum Dei. Secundiim autem eos, qui sunt ἃ Va- 
lentino, werum non per eum factus est, sed per Demiurgum. Hic enim operabatur similitudines 


14 THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


tales fieri, ad imitationem eorum que sunt sursum, quemadmodum dicunt: Demiurgus autem 
perficiebat fabricationem conditionis. Emissum enim dicunt eum ἃ matre Dominum et Demiur- 
gum ejus dispositionis, que est secundim conditionem, per quem hoc mundum factum volunt 
quim Evangelium manifest dicat, yuoniam per Verbum, quod in principio erat apud Deum, 
omnia sunt facta: quod Verbum, inquit, caro factum est, et inhabitavit in nobis. 

Secundiim autem illos, neque Verbum caro factum est, neque Christus, neque qui ex omnibus 
Factus est, Salvator. Htenim Verbum et Christwm nec advenisse in hune mundum volunt; Sal- 
vatorem verd non incarnatum neque passum; descendisse autem quasi columbam in eum Jesum 
qui factus est ex dispositione, et cum adnunciasset incognitum Patrem, iterum ascendisse in Ple- 
roma. Incarnatum wutem est passum quidam quidem eum, qui ex dispositione sit, dicunt Jesum, 
quem per Mariam dicunt pertransisse, quasi aquam per tubum: alii verd Demiurgi filium, in 
quem descendisse eum Jeswm qui ex dispositione sit: alii rursum Jesum quidem ex Joseph et 
Maria natum dicunt, et in hune descendisse Christum, qui de superioribus sit sine carne et im- 
passibilem ewxistentem. Secundiim autem nullam sententiam hereticorum, Verbum Dei caro 
Factum est. ‘Si enim quis requlas ipsorum omnium perscrutetur, inveniet quoniam sine carne et 
impassibile ab omnibus ilis inducitur DeiVerbum, et qui est in superioribus Christus, alii 
enim putant manifestatum eum, quemadmodum hominem transfiguratum; neque autem natum 
neque incarnatum dicunt ulum: ali verd neque figuram eum asswmpsisse hominis: sed quem- 
admodum columbam descendisse in eum Jesum, qui natus est exc Maria. Omnes igitur illos 
Falsos testes ostendens discipulus Donuni, ait: “ Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis.” 
(Iren. 111. xi. p.462). The English reader is also referred to the valuable notices of those early 
heresies in Bp. Bull’s Defence of the Nicene Creed, iii. 1; Dr. Burton’s Bampton Lectures, 1829, 
Lecture VI. pp. 158-160; Dr. Waterland on the Trinity, v. 139; and Pearson’s Vind. Jgnat. 11. 
ce. I. p. 351, ed. Churton.—M.] 


¢7. SCOPE OF THE EPISTLE. 


The Apostle distinctly specifies in two passages the scope of this Epistle, viz.: ch. i. 4: ἵνα ἡ 
χαρὰ ὑμῶν ἡ πεπληρωμένη, and ch. γ. 18: ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον. The Church therefore has 
already the joy of faith, the joy of the possession of eternal life; but it must increase and grow 
until it is perfected; the Church has eternal life, but she must know and be conscious of it. 
Further particulars relating to the scope of the Epistle may be gleaned from the preceding para- 
graph. They must abide with Christ, without whom they have neither joy nor eternal life, the 
object of joy, without whom also they have no undimmed and clear consciousness of what they 
are and have, of what they may acquire or preserve; John desires to keep his Church with 
Christ, who is from the beginning, and will come again as Judge, but in the form of a Servant, 
became our Redeemer and Saviour (ch. i. 1 8. 5-10; ii, 1-3. 22-28; iii. 1-6; iv. 1-6; v. 1-2; 
18-20). By obedience to the law and commandments of God and by a faithful following of Christ, 
he desires to establish his people more and more in the communion of God and in the participa- 
tion of the Divine nature as the children of God (ii. 3-11; iii. 4-18). In Christian humility before 
the Father and the Son, and in Church-fellowship he desires to fill them with courage in con- 
fronting all proud spirits and the anti-Christian powers of the world; he wants them to be timid 
lest in any way they should injure the truth, the word of God, or themselves, but courageous 
and fearless in reliance on God and in the conflict with the world and its lusts and threatenings 
(ch, ii. 12-21; iv. 7-27). On that account they must not think lightly of the faith, as if the 
wisdom of the world were superior to it, but cling to it as the means by which they lay hold of 
Christ and eternal life and of the Father Himself, and make them so thoroughly their own, that 
thereby they may be glorified in and with Christ (ch. iii. 1-3; iii, 23,24; v, 1-5). “Thus John, 
like Paul at the very close of the apostolic age, plants with a firm hand the cross before the 
Church, as the lighthouse destined to shed its friendly light in all the storms through which she 
has to pass. The foolishness of the Crucified shall always be her wisdom, and all the efforts of 
false doctrine shall split on it.” (Pressensé, History of the First Three Centuries, II. p. 234 sqq.). 

[Huther specifies three chief points as essential to the understanding of the construction of 
the Epistle : 


| 28. DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 15 
ἘΞ πες τ εὐ σι τ Ὁ Ὁ σε er 

1, The manifest purpose of the Apostle to preserve his readers in the fellowship with God, 
that their joy may become perfect. 

2. For the accomplishment of his purpose he develops the thoughts that fellowship with God 
is possible only in a holy life of love, rooted in faith in Jesus Christ, and answering to the Being 
of God, and that the Christian is not only obliged to lead such a life, but that he necessarily does 
lead it in virtue of his being born of God (whereby he is absolutely opposed to the world, which 
15 ἐκ τοῦ πονηρδυ). 

3. The Apostle develops these thoughts both with reference to the anti-Christian lie that had 
already appeared, and the nearness of the advent of Christ. 

Huther then states his reasons for his division of the Epistle into six parts, viz.: The exor- 
dium, ch. i. 1-4; 1, 5-1. 11; 11. 12-28; ii. 29-411. 22; iii. 23-v. 17; v. 18-21, the conclusion, and 
leaving aside the exordium and conclusion, he says that of the remaining four parts, 

The first (i. 511. 11) warns against the danger of moral indifferentism, the second (ii. 12-28) 
warns against the love of the world and antichrist, the third (ii. 29-iii, 22) shows that nothing 
short of a righteous life in brotherly love is compatible with the nature of Christians, and the 
fourth (iii. 23-v. 17) indicates faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as the Divinely authenticated 
foundation of the Christian life-—M.]. 


¢8. DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


The material already produced in the foregoing paragraphs furnishes us with three points 
of view from which we may determine the date of this Epistle ; first, the Epistle itself; secondly, 
the author, the Apostle John; thirdly, the writing related to the Epistle, viz.: the Gospel. 

1. From the Epistle itself we glean these particulars: 

a. It contains no reference to seasons of persecutions when it was written (2 6, 1.); conse- 
quently it must have been written before the time of Trajan (A. D, 98—117), even before the 
end of the reign of Domitian, who reigned until A. D. 96, and also after the reign of Nero and 
the destruction of Jerusalem, consequently between A. D. 70 and 96, and rather about 90 than 
soon after 70, since the greatness and importance of that catastrophe would render some refer- 
ence to it most natural, unless a sufficient period of time had elapsed to account for the want of 
such reference. Ch. ii. 18 cannot be made to supply a chronological date; ἐσχάτῃ ὥρα is too in- 
definite an expression for that purpose; besides, the context in which it occurs must not be 
explained of external events, but relates to internal disturbances occasioned by antichristian 
heresies. Hence we cannot see with Diisterdieck (I. p. ciii.) a prophetical reference to the judg- 
ment impending on Jerusalem, but join him in decidedly rejecting the reference of this passage 
to the end of the Jewish state, as maintained by Grotius, Benson, ad. 

ὃ. The more so, because cognizance is taken not of Jewish opposition, but of Gentile corrup- 
tion, the strength of the former having been broken with the destruction of Jerusalem, 

6. The Church-life, well-ordered in-its course and of many years’ standing, points likewise 
to the time after A.D. 70 ( 6, 2). : 

d. The heresies also point to the time after the destruction of Jerusalem to the end of the 
century (2 6, 3). 

2. The Apostle John cannot have entered upon his labours among the Churches of Asia 
Minor until after the death of Paul, A.D. 64 (ἢ 4, 1. 2); he lived at Jerusalem until about A.D. 
60; after that time no trace of him is found there. Moreover, the whole tenor of the Epistle for- 
bids the hypothesis that it marks the beginning of his ministry in that sphere, as a kind of pas- 
toral Epistle. Huther, who had advanced this view in the first edition of his Commentary, has 
retracted it in the second edition: this view is too modern to suit the ancient Church. The 
Apostle was banished to Patmos during the reign of Domitian, consequently before A.D. 96, and 
died after A.D. 100, in a good old age. Cf. Lange on the Gospel of John in the Bibelwerk:, LV., 
p. 8.9. (German edition). 

3. The Gospel at all events was written before the Epistle. If we read in the Gospel, ch, 
xx. 31: ταῦτα γέγοαπται ἵνα, πιστεύσητε ὅτι ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστ. 

21 ; 


16 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


εὔοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῇ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, believing in Jesus the Christ and /ife in His Name are the 
end contemplated; butif we read in the Epistle, 1 John v. 13: ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, ἵνα εἰ δῆτε, ὅτι 
ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, the reference is simply to the know- 
ledge of believers who already possess faith and eternal life. This would indicate that the Gospel 
was written prior to the Epistle, that both could not have been written at the same time, and 
that the Epistle was not a companion-writing of the Gospel. John could not have thus written 
simultaneously to the same readers: the Epistle realizes what is only aimed at in the Gospel.—Diis- 
terdieck (I., p. LIX.) thinks it only possible, while we think it inevitably certain, that the Epistle 
was written after the Gospel, and believe that this opinion may also be proved by many passages 
of the Epistle in which thoughts developed in the Gospel are expressed in a briefer and more 
pregnant form. Compare 


1 John ii. 2. with John xi. 52. 


u. 4. xv. 10. 
27. xiv. 26. 
ii. 8. viii. 44. 
18. xv. 18. 19. 
14. v. 24. 
22. . ix tole xvinigoweo: 
ἦν. Ὁ. vill. 47. 
16. i. 16. 
ν 1 il, 36; xiv. 6. 
14, xiv. 13. 14. 
xvi. 33. 


As a rule, the briefer form is the later and riper form of thought; a splendid illustration of 
the truth of this position may be found on a larger scale in Luther’s Lesser Catechism, which, 
being the more difficult of the two, followed his Larger Catechism. But we must not disregard 
the circumstances under which the Epistle was written, and the relations to which the author 
had respect. Hence the comparison of the exordium of the Epistle with the beginning of the 
prologue is at any rate irrelevant, because the Apostle begins there in a monologue, whereas he 
begins here moved by the double impulse of vivid joy in the Lord and tender care for the Church. 
And the comparison of ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο, John 1. 14, and ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθώς, does 
not show that the former expression is more definite, and therefore of a later date than the latter, 
because that was chosen and held fast with particular reference to the heresy intended to be op- 
posed (against Huther) 

[As Dr. Braune’s view may fail to carry conviction to the mind of the reader, we add that 
of Huther (in Meyer’s Comment., p. 33): “The greater number of critics assume that the Epistle 
was written after the Gospel, and that the date of the latter is subsequent to the destruction of 
Jerusalem. As to the first point, the chief argument is that derived from occasional references 
in the Epistle to the Gospel; but this is not the case; there is not a single passage in the whole 
Epistle, which presupposes the known existence of the written Gospel.” (Reuss: “We need the 
Gospel as a commentary on the Epistle; but as the Epistle had a commentary in the oral instruc- 
tions of the author, this circumstance does not prove the later date of the Epistle”). It seems 
more probable per se that John, moved by the pernicious influence of the false teachers, wrote 
first the Epistle for the admonition and warning of the Churches confided to his care, and after- 
wards the Gospel for the benefit of all Christendom, as “a hallowed document of the historical 
basis of salvation,” than that he wrote first the Gospel, and then the Epistle. (The general ob- 
servation of Thiersch, “that, as a rule, the proposition: writings of a momentary destination, among 
which most of the Epistles have to be classed, are of an earlier origin than the writings of a permanent 
destination, which include the Gospels, may be proved historically true,” may also be applied to the 
relation of the Gospel to the Epistle of John.)—And this seems to be confirmed by some of the 
very passages adduced to show the dependence of the Epistle on the Gospel. The passage, 1 
John i. 1-4, compared with John i. 1 sqq., appears to be not the later, but the earlier, because 
the Apostle in the former struggles to give a proper expression to his idea, whereas, in the latter 


35. LITERATURE. 17 


he has already found it, and the expression: ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, compared with Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν 
σαρκὶ ἐληλυθώς, shows the latter to be less definite, and on that account perhaps earlier than the 
former. Moreover, the affinity of the two writings warrants the supposition, that in point of 
time they are not far distant from each other; and this affinity appears not only in the character 
peculiar to both, but also in their form, seeing that both not only commence with an exordium 
embodying the same ideas, but that also the concluding thoughts of both writings exhibit a sin- 
gular correspondency, cf. John xx. 31, with 1 John v. 13.—As to the second point: while no con- 
clusive proof can be drawn from the Gospel itself that the Epistle was written after the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, it contains on the other hand nothing to contradict the ancient tradition 
that John wrote the Gospel towards the close of his life. Nor is it improbable that it was not 
published during the life of the Apostle; at least it is more natural to assume that the twenty- 
first chapter was added at the time of its publication, than at a later period when it had already 
become the possession of the Christian Churches. In that case John wrote his Gospel as a legacy 
for the time subsequent to his death; but this would require the Epistle also to have been written 
at the close of the Apostle’s life, but before the Gospel. The Apostle indeed states nowhere that his 
readers had heard the Gospel of him, notwithstanding his reiterated reference to their acquaint- 
ance with the Gospel, nor is there a single passage to prove his personal labours among them, 
although we must not infer from this that he wrote this Epistle when he settled in Asia Minor, 
after the decease of Paul, as a pastoral introductory of his work there (first edition of Huther’s 
Commentary); for on the one hand, we lack all indications of such a tendency of the Epistle, and 
on the other, said circumstance may be accounted for by the consideration that the Apostle in- 
tended this Epistle not exclusively for the use of those Churches among whom he exercised his 
ministry, but also for that of others not included in the round of his visitations —An unbiassed 
consideration of all the circumstances renders it probable that John wrote this Epistle during 
the last quarter of the Apostolical age.”—M. ]. 

4. Putting all things together, the year A.D. 90 seems to mark the date of this Epistle; so 
Ewald (Die Johann. Schriften, 1., p. 471). It is impossible to fix the date of the Epistle with 
Hilgenfeld, who gives A.D. 150 for the date of the Gospel, at A.D. 125-150, unless it be classed 
with the Tubingen school among the pseudo-epigraphical literature of the New Testament. 


29. PLACK WHERE THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN. 


It is not known and cannot be determined. Some mention Ephesus, after an old supposi- 
tion found in several subscriptions by Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach and Matthzi, but hardly en- 
titled to the name of tradition. This is also the view of Bengel, who observes: “non videtur pe- 
regre misisse, sed coram impertise auditoribus.’—Hug, Grotius and Ebrard name Patmos as the 
place where the Epistle and the Gospel were written, the former with reference to 2 John 12, and 
3 John 13, as if the want of writing-material pointed to the Apostle’s exile. But ancient tradi- 
tion names Ephesus also as the place where the Gospel was written. See Lange, Bibelwerk, IV., 
p. 26. (German edition). 


210. LITERATURE. 


Compare, (and it is worth comparing) Luxckz’s section on the principal features of the his- 
tory of the first Epistle of John. 

Of the Commentaries of the Greek Fathers some have been lost entirely (Dioporvs of Tar- 
sus, CHRysostom), others with the exception of small fragments (CLumEnt of Alexandria), and 
others with the exception of fragments not wholly unimportant (Drpymus of Alexandria).—The 
Catene of OECUMENIUS, THEOPHYLACT and two Scholiasts have been preserved. 

Of the Latin fathers we have the Expositio of AuausTINE and thatof Bepr. From the time 
of the Reformation we may notice, besides the Annotationes in Novum Testamentum by Erasmus, 
two expositions of LurHEr ( Werke ed. Walch IX., 909-1079; and 1080-1252), the Commentaries 
of Canvin and Brza, the lectures of Zwrnaui taken down and edited as an expositio by MEGAN- 
DER, and BULLINGER’s Brevis et Catholica Expositio. 


18 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Along with the Lutheran A. Canovius, the Arminian Hueco Grorius should be named. 
BENGEL, in his Gnomon, is here,as always,very noteworthy. 

Among the moderns we specify in particular Lupcxy, whose Commentary passed through a 
third edition in 1856, and DE Wexrtx, whose hand-book has in several respects been happily im- 
proved by BruEcKNER. Exrarp has contributed the Epistles of John to OLsHausEN’s Commen- 
tary. Excellent is DuEsteRp1EcK’s: Die Drei Johanneischen Briefe, 2 Bande; Gottingen, 1852-1854. 
Houtuer’s Commentary in Meyer’s Critico-exegetical Hand-book is very well done; 2d ed., 1861. 

For practical exegetical purposes we name after SpENER’s Exposition, 1699, ZeLLER’s (Arch- 
deacon at St. Nicolai, Leipzig) Explication of the First Epistle of John in 206 sermons, 1709.—StTEIN- 
HoFER, The First Epistle of John, 1762; Hamburg, 1848.—Rickut, Johannis 1 Brief Erklart und 
Angewendet in Predigten; Luzern, 1828.—JouannsEn, Sermons on the First Epistle of John; Altona, 
1838.—K. Braune, the Epistles of John; Grimma, 1847.—A. NEANDER, the First Epistle of John, 
practically explained; Berlin, 1851. [A good translation of this work by Mrs. H. 0. Conant, 
New York, 1853.—M.].—Wotr, Practical Comment. on the first Epistle of John in Church Cate- 
chizings; Leipzig, 1851—Hrunner, Practical Exposition of the N. T., Vol. IV., pp. 378-440.— 
Besser, Bibelstunden, Vol. V. The Epistles of John, 3d ed., 1862. 

On the doctrine see Scumip, Bibl. Theology of the N. T., 1853, Vol. 2, p. 359 sqq. Cf. LancE 
in Bibelwerk, Vol. IV., p. 27. (German edition). ; 

[We may add, besides the General Commentaries, the following works: 

Priocaus, J., in Crit. Saer. 

Wuiston, W., Comm. on the Three Catholic Epistles of John, in agreement with the ancient- 
est records of Christianity now extant. London, 1719. 

Hawexrns, T., a Comment. on the First, Second and Third Epistles of John. Halifax, 1808, 

BickERsteTH, E., Family Exposition, etc. London, 1846, 

SHEPHERD, Wotes on the Gospel and Epistles of John. London, 1840. 

Mavnrce, F. D., The Epistles of John. A Series of Lectures on Christian Ethics, Cam- 
bridge, 1857. 

Mersrrezat, Jean, Exposition dela Premiere Epistre del’ Apostre St. Jean. 2 Vols. Ge- 
neva, 1651. 

Parerson, 8., a Commentary on the first Epistle of John. Sondon, 1842. 

Pierce, An Exposition of the First Epistle General of John, in 93 Sermons. Lond., 1835. 
—M.]. 


COMMENTARY. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE (GENERAL) OF JOHN THE APOSTLE. 


Twayov ain A. B. Iwawov επιστολὴ a Cod. Sin. al. [other Codd. read ἐπιστολὴ [wavvov 
tpwt ; 1. r. Iwayvou tov αποστολοὺ επιστολὴ xabohxn πρωτη.---Ν 1. 


I. THE EXORDIUM. 
Cuarter I. 1-4. 


OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE APOSTOLIC ANNUNCIATION (1-3). DESIGN OF THE 
EPISTLE. (Ver. 4). 


1 That which? was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with 
our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of 
2 life; (For? the life was manifested, and we have seen 7t,* and bear witness, and show 
unto you that eternal life, which* was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 
3 That which we have seen and heard declare® we unto you, that ye also may have fel- 
lowship with us: and truly our fellowship ὃ ¢s with the Father, and with his Son Jesus 
4 Christ. And these things write’ we unto you that your joy® may be full. 
Verse 1. 1 German [“‘ What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we 
gazed upon and our hands handled, of the Word of the Life.”—M.] 
Verse 2. 2German [“‘And the Life was manifested, and we have seen and testified and declare unto you the eternal 
Life, as which it was with the Father and was manifested unto us.”—M.] 
8[ Tt, supplied by E. V., not necessary; it is better to construe ἑωράκαμεν, μαρτυροῦμεν and ἀπαγ- 
έλλομεν with ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. So Lachm., Hahn, Theile, Tischend. and Lillie.—M. ] 


Y 
£[On the whole, the rendering of E. V., “that eternal Life which was with the Father,” is preferable to the 
German, and the meaning is clear without the adoption of the Greek idiom, “ Life Eternal,” by Words- 


worth.—M. ] ἢ 
Verse 3. 5[German: “ What we have seen and heard, declare we also to you, that ye . . . . us; and our fellowship in- 
deed is with... . Christ.” καὶ--δὲ; the καὶ adds something, and ὃ ὲ is slightly adversative, cf. 2 


Peter i. 5, also Matt. xvi. 18; Mark iv. 36; Luke ii. 35; Acts iii. 24; xxii.29; Heb. ix. 21; John vi. 51; 
viii. ἘΝ 17; xv. 27.—Indeed or truly seem to bring out this slightly adversative sense better than again 
- (Lillie).—M.] 

Cod. Sin. has καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν. The first «at occurs also in Theoph. and Vulg. (Cod. 
Amiatinus ; it may have crept in from y. 2). The second καὶ is foundin A.B.C. Ood. Sin. has before 
this second καὶ an erased ει, as if ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς was to have followed forthwith; καὶ ὑμῖν 
seems therefore to be copied. 

6 Cod. Sin. has ὑμῶν after ἡμετέρα, but a disapproval in the margin. 
Verse 4. 7B. ἡμεῖς for ὑμῶν, (Cod. Sin. ἡμεῖς and ἡμῶν.--Μ.] 
8B. G.al. ἡμῶν; so Vulgate with the variation, “wt gaudeatis et gaudium nostrum sit plenum.” Both ἡμεῖς 
and ἡμῶν have probably arisen from the μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν and ἡμετέρα of v.3,[7 χαρὰ ὑμῶν. A. 
C. K. al. Copt.; Tischend.—M.] 

[German: “And these things we write unto you that your joy may be fulfilled.’ Wordsworth: “filled up 

to the full;” but fulfilled is better.—M.] 


the Apostolical annunciation and of this Epis- 

: Caan eo ahs tle.-—The affinity of this exordium with the pro- 

The exordium (v. 1-4) describes in vivid and | logue of the Gospel of St. John is unmistak- 
definite language the object and purpose of | able. 


20 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


THE GOSPEL. 


Ver. 1. In the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ) was the 
Word. 
1. 2. And it was with God (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.) 


1-4. The Word (λόγος) in Him was Life (C7. ) 

4. 5. The Life was the Light of men, and the 
Light shineth (φαίνει)---- 

9. He was the true Light, who lighteneth 
every man, come into the world. 

14. We gazed upon His glory (ἐθεασάμεθα. 


Equally unmistakable is the difference between 
the two exordia; the prologue of the Gospel is a 
monologue, a testimony and confession, where 
the Apostle, soaring aloft like an eagle, is raised 
in calm contemplation above all the tumults of 
life; the exordium of the Epistle, however, is 
written in profound emotion under the impres- 
sions of a blessed experience in the past, and of 
the present in hearty sympathy with and tender 
anxiety for the readers of the Epistle ; its address 
is eloquent, pathetic and lively. 

In point of form this exordium differs from 
that of almost all the Epistles of the New Testa- 
ment, and resembles only the exordium of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews; it is alike devoid of the 
name of the writer, of a description of the read- 
ers, and of the salutation. But even in the se- 
cond and third Epistles, although addressed to 
individuals, and specifying their name or descrip- 
tion, the name of the author is not given, his 
office only being mentioned (ὁ πρεσβύτεροο).---- 8 
in the Gospel, so in the Epistles, John loves to 
suppress his name (Johni. 85. 40; xiii. 25; xviii. 
15; xix. 26; xx. 8; xxi. 20, and cf. J. P. Lange, 
the Ev. Jo., p. 63. 2). But although he does not 
name himself, the Apostolical office and vocation 
of the author are accurately marked; and al- 
though the readers are not even designated, his 
relation to them is made sufficiently prominent, 
so that we must say that the Epistle is written 
not only for them, but to them. But the saluta- 
tion (yalpew) may be alluded to in ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ 
ὑμῶν ἡ πεπληρωμένη. 

The structure, v. 1-8, owing to its liveliness, is 
not quite simple; it is repeatedly interrupted and 
has been variously given. The fundamental or 
leading word (the verbum finitum), is doubtless 
ἀπαγγέλλομεν, ¥. 8, which for the sake of clear- 
ness is appropriately placed between the object 
of the annunciation and its purpose. The pur- 
pose is simply and definitely indicated: iva xai 
ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε pew’ ἡμῖν. In defining the 
object, the Apostle seems to struggle for the right 
expressions, and renders it prominent in a double 
series of clauses, first, v. 1: ὃ ἦν an’ ἀρχῆς---ἐψη- 
λάφησαν ; then vy. 1: περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς---ὐφα- 
νερώθη ἡμῖν. He marks it first according to its 
import and being, v. 1. ὃ ἦν dm ἀρχῆς, in the 
second part of v. 1; περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, and 
v. 2, ἡ ζωή ἡ αἰώνιος ἤτις ἣν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, and 
then according to its manifestation, v. 1: ὃ ἑωρά- 
καμεν---ἐψηλάφησαν, V. 2: ἐφανερώθη----ἡμῖν, or first 
according to its mysterious sublimity and fulness, 
and then according to the manifold internal re- 
lations in which it stood and stands to John and 
his associates. The Apostle, while strongly 
marking the object of the Apostolical annuncia- 


THE FIRST EPISTLE. 
Ver. 1. What was from the beginning (ἀπ᾽ 


ἀρχῆς. 

2. Which (Lite) was with God [with the Fa- 
ther] (πρὸς τὸν ϑεὸν. 

1. The word of the Life (τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς.) 

2. The Life was manifested, appeared (é¢ave- 
ρώθη.) 


2. What we have seen with our eyes, what we 
gazed upon (ἐθεασάμεθα.) 


tion after the first series of relative clauses by 
περὶ Tov λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, takes occasion to introduce 
with the Genitive ζωῆς a parenthesis, v. 2, which 
concludes with ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν, and cannot be re- 
solved or broken up. This constrains him to 
connect the sentence, thus interrupted by the 
parenthesis, with what goes before by ὃ ἑωράκαμεν 
kai ἀκηκόαμεν, and so that, as the sentence begins 
with a relative, now that the object has been dis- 
tinctly defined by περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, it also 
concludes with a relative. We have therefore 
here no period with protasis and apodosis, but a 
simple sentence, much enlarged indeed and in- 
terrupted by long parentheses, the structure of 
which however is plain enough and does not al- 
low any other construing. 


THE OBJECT OF THE APOSTOLICAL ANNUNCIATION. 
VER. 1-34 


a. The First Series of Clauses.—VeEx. 1. 


Ver. 1. What was from the beginning.— 
The opening words remind us of John i. 1: ‘In 
the beginning was the Word,” and of Gen. i. 1: 
Τὴ the beginning God created.’’ Not the mo- 
ment of creation, but the purely eternal existence 
until the beginning of the world and its history. 
The word ἀρχή must always be defined by the 
context, 6. g., in 1 John ii. 7: “Ye had from the 
beginning,” the beginning denotes the time when 
they became Christians, in ch. iii. 8, “the devil 
sinneth from the beginning,” ἃ. e., from the time 
when he became the devil, which happened im- 
mediately after the creation of the world; in ch. 
ii. 18, 14: ‘Ye have known him that is from the 
beginning,” i. e., from eternity, Jesus Christ.— 
The beginning of the devil dates from the crea- 
tion of the world (ch. iii. 8), the beginning of 
faith lies in the life of the readers themselves 
(ch. ii. 7), and the beginning here and at ch. ii. 
18, denotes eternity before the creation of the 
world. The sense is clear from the parallel sen- 
tence, v. 2, ““ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα,᾽" and corresponds 
with πρὸ πάντων Col. i. 17, πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου 
Eph. i. 4, πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι John xvii. 5, or 
with ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων Eph. iii. 9; Col. i. 26. But 
ἀπό does not equal πρὸ, nor is az’ ἀρχῆς equal to 
ἐν ἀρχῇ, John i. 1.—In the Gospel the Apostle 
describes and considers the Existence of the 
Logos with the Father before the Creation, and 
then proceeds to denote His agency in the crea- 
tion; but here the Apostle passes from the Exist- 
ence of the Logos to His manifestations in history. 
He was therefore before the world was, and He 
was, before He appeared in history [ἡ e., before 
His incarnation.—M.]. The Apostle looks back 
from his personal experience to the eternity from 


CHAP. I. 1-4. 


21 


whence He came; His eye travels over thousands 
of years from the beginning to the time of His 
personal experience. As He became not the Lo- 
gos when He became man, so He became not 
[began to exist—M.] when the world was made, 
began to exist. The reference is consequently 
not to the μυστήριον Θεοῦ (Theophylact, Oecumen. ), 
or to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Socinus), or to 
the res a Deo destinatz (Grotius).—The simplest 
explanation of the designation of the personal 
Logos by the Neuter 4, is the supposition that the 
Apostle, moved by the mysterious sublimity and 
the fulness of essential [belonging to the Being 
or Essence of Christ—M.] glory (which will not 
be fully recognized and known before His ulti- 
mate revelation in His second advent, ch. iii. 2: 
καθώς ἐστι), writes with a soaring sense of indefi- 
niteness, and views the Person to whom he refers 
at the same time as the principle of the world 
and its history, although this does not pass into 
a reflecting consciousness [sic in German.—M. ]. 
Similarly τὸ κατέχον precedes ὁ κατέχων in 2 Thess. 
ii. 6; similar terms may also be seen in Luke i. 
85; John iii. 6; vi. 87; Heb. vii. 7; 1 Cor. i. 27 
sq.; Col. i. 26; 1 John v. 4. The reference is 
consequently not to abstraction, the Word of 
Life, the Life (Huther), or to the connection of 
the Person of Jesus with His history and doc- 
trine (Liicke, Ebrard), or the taking together of 
His preéxistence and historical appearance (Diis- 
terdieck), or to the mere designation of the Apos- 
tolical annunciation (Hofmann). [Braune’s ex- 
planation lacks perspicuity, and really seeks to 
combine the views of Huther and Diisterdieck, 
with the addition of a reference to the second 
coming of Christ; we doubt whether it will con- 
vince many readers, while Huther’s explanation, 
which we give in full, supplies a clear and natu- 
ral reason for the use of the Neuter 6. ‘The 
Apostle points to the Apostolical annunciation, 
namely, the personal Christ, by the Neuter be- 
cause he thinks of Him as ‘the Word of Life,’ or 
‘the Life.’ The reference then being to an ab- 
stract (per se) or general idea, Cw, the Neuter 6 
seems to be in place. The Apostle might indeed 
have used ὅς for 6, because this Cw# is to him the 
personal Christ; but considering that the charac- 
teristic import of Christ consists in His being the 
Jvfe (not only a living individual) and that John, 
full of this idea, begins this Epistle, it was more 
natural that he should use 6 than 6c¢-””—M. ] 
What we have heard—seen—gazed 
upon—handled is a rising gradation; hearing 
is the lowest degree of the climax, it strikes the 
ear from a certain distance, perhaps unsought 
for; with our eyes intensifies the word seen ; 
seeing indeed may be involuntary, but the begin- 
ning of self-activity is already marked; gazing 
upon gives prominence to this self-activity [vol- 
untary exercise of the sense of sight—M. ], with 
the secondary idea of continuance; handled 
with our hands denotes the nearest and most 
direct intercourse. By ‘‘ what we have heard” 
the Apostle naturally passes from the eternal ex- 
istence of the Logos to His historical appear- 
ing; the λόγος ἄσαρκος becomes the λόγος ἔνσαρκος. 
He makes Himself known first and most natu- 
rally in the Word. Not what he had heard of 
Him in the Word of the Old Testament, in the 
prophecies until John the Baptist, but that he had 


heard Himself. “O cannot be another object than 
in the first clause; the same word, 6, is used in 
all the clauses, and designates the same object, 
the Logos; the perceptions and modes of revela- 
tion only differ. The Apostle had not only heard 
words of the mouth, words from human lips, but 
in such human words, and through them the 
speaker Himself, the Logos; not the Apostle’s 
ear, but he himself has heard, his soul of course 
through the instrumentality of the material or- 
gan of hearing.—He had seen, as he says, in or- 
der to lay peculiar emphasis on the testimony of 
his ears and eyes, with his own eyes, the form of a 
servant, the Son of man, but of course what lived 
therein shown forth therefrom in look and mien, 
in manner and motion; the soul of John, there- 
fore, looked with bodily eyes into the Nature of 
the manifested, incarnate Logos. Hence again 
the same object. Indeed He says Himself: ‘‘He 
that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,” Jno. 
xiv. 9 compared with ch. xii. 45. 

What we gazed upon—handled are Aor- 
ists, not Perfects, as just before. This change 
of tense is neither arbitrary nor inaccurate, but 
designed and wise. The Apostle had heard and 
seen in single moments; these are finished acts, 
facts with their effects; but now he intends by 
the use of these Aorists to point to the past as an 
expiring present, how he had ever and anon had 
continuous intercourse with Him in the most di- 
rect nearness and lively self-activity.—The verbs 
“heard” and ‘‘seen”’ rather denote involuntary 
perception, while the others, ‘‘ gazed upon” and 
“‘handled,” signify voluntary, intentional percep- 
tion for the purpose of making sure of the real- 
ity and nature of the Logos. (Huther).—The 
man Jesus only was gazed upon, His body only 
was handled, but through all that sensuousness 
the Son of God was recognized and felt, and His 
Divine glory perceived and experienced. We 
have, therefore, to deal with the same object 
throughout. The verb ‘‘ gazed upon” reminds us 
of the language of John in his Gospel (ch. i. 14): 
“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, 
and we gazed upon (ἐϑεασάμεθα) His glory;” the 
verb ‘‘handled”’ is connected with the words of 
the risen Saviour, Lke. xxiy. 89: ‘‘Behold my 
hands and my feet that it 151 myself; handle me 
(ψηλαφήσατέ με), and see; for a spirit hath not 
flesh and bones as ye see me have,” cf. Jno, xx. 
27. John, who leaned on His bosom, Jno. xiii. 
28: ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ, Jno. xiii. 25; xxi. 20: ἐπὶ τὸ 
στῆθος, denotes thereby the most intimate relation, 
rendering shaking of hands and kissing proper, 
and thus places the real humanity and bodily ex- 
istence of Christ beyond the possibility of doubt. 
‘He patiently allowed murderers to handle Him, 
why should He not have suffered those who love 
Hign to do the same.” (Pfenninger). Thus the 
Apostle marks here two things, first, the fulness of 
his perceptions, and, secondly, their authentica- 
tion. Luther says correctly: ‘‘He multiplies 
words, and thus makes the matter great and im- 
portant. We have, says he, looked and gazed 
upon with the utmost care and diligence; we 
have not been deceived, but are sure that it was 
not an illusion. He says this in order to make 
his hearers perfectly sure of the matter.”” Thus 
both the glory of the incarnate Word, so difficult 
to understand, and the authentication of the tes- 


22 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


timony, so important in its bearing, are por- 
trayed in such lively colours on account of the 
object. 


b. The Second Series of Clauses.—VeER. 1-3a. 


Of the word of the Life is neither an in- 
dependent appositive addition to the preceding 
definitions of the object (Huther), nor governed 
by the last verb, ἐψηλάφησαν (Erasmus, al.), nor, 
indeed, by ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς (S. G. Lange, ‘What 
happened to the Word of Life from the begin- 
ning!”). Itis the beginning of a new clause, 
parallel with the series of relative clauses as to 
matter (Diisterdieck), which terminates with 
them in ἀπαγγέλλομεν. That which before had 
been taken indefinitely as a Neuter, is here de- 
scribed for the first time as a Person. The Word 
of Life, per se, may stand both for the Gospel of 
Life and the Personal Logos of Life, and taken as 
the Apostolical Word, or the hypostatical Word. 
If it be taken in the former sense as verbum sim- 
pliciter (Bengel), the Genitive τῆς ζωῆς may de- 
signate the quality (Socinus, Grotius), like 6 
ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς, Jno. vi. 85, τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς, or the 
object (Luther: ‘we speak of the life,” Diister- 
dieck), as in 1 Cor. i. 18: ὁ λόγος τοῦ σταυροῦ. 
But this construction of περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is 
impossible, because it must be connected with 
ἀπαγγέλλομεν (1 Thess. i. 9: περὶ ἡμῶν ἀπαγγέλ- 
Aovowv) ; the construction with περὶ instead of the 
Accusative is designed to guard against the pos- 
sible misunderstanding of making the Word de- 
signate the Gospel and not Christ. To speak the 
Gospel concerning, respecting the Word, although 
in the manner of a declaration, pertains rather 
to the province of science, is more the work of 
the theologian than of the Apostle. But gram- 
matically it is inadmissible to infer from the pa- 
renthesis after ζωῆς, namely from the words 
ἀπαγγέλλομεν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, that λόγος τῆς 
ζωῆς is equal to said words, 7. 6., the declaration 
or annunciation of life. The Word, ὁ λόγος, the 
object of the Apostolic annunciation, must be, as 
in Jno. i. 1, sqq., the original, eternal, personal 
Word, the eternal Son of the eternal Father, and 
fully accords with ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, with the sole 
difference that the newtrwm becomes a masculinum, 
in order to bring out the personal character of 
the Logos according to His historical manifesta- 
tion. On ὁ λόγος see J. P. Lange, The Gospel Ac- 
cording to John, p. 88, sq., Germ, edition.—The 
Genitive τῆς ζωῆς is explained by Jno. i. 4: ἐν 
αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν. The Word has Life in itself, is Life 
Itself, and imparts Life to others. It is the true, 
eternal, primal Life, and this Life is the Nature 
of the Logos, but the object of the annunciation 
is the Logos Himself. (Diisterdieck). 

Ver. 2. And the Life was manifested.— 
καὶ adds in a vivid manner an explanation by in- 
troducing a parenthesis and interrupting the sen- 
tence; ἐφανερώθη recalls Jno. i. 4. δ, **And the 
Life was the Light, and the Light shineth (φαίνει) 
in the darkness.” The Life of the Logos ap- 
peared, was manifested, so that we may infer His 
Being and Nature from His Life, and thus ac- 
quire a knowledge of the Son. This epiphany 
is the immediate consequence of the Incarnation, 
of the ἐνσάρκωσις. Jno. i. 14: ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο. 

And we have seen—testify—declare.— 


Antithesis of Jno. i. 5, ‘And the darkness has 
(Luther: had) not comprehended it.” The cli- 
max is: ἑωράκαμεν connected with ἐφανερώθη, he 
had been a spectator, but did not see in vain; for 
he became a witness through intercourse with the 
manifested One, and in his capacity of witness 
he fixes his eye on what had become visible, the 
acts and events which he had experienced: what 
he thus sees and utters is purely objective with- 
out reference to his hearers and their wants or 
relations, but in the interest in and for the mat- 
ter itself. But he does not stop there; he now 
declares also what he has seen; he explains and 
applies at the same time; he unfolds in their ful- 
ness, and with a special interest in his readers, 
the thoughts and facts comprised in his personal 
experience. The objective is brought near 
through the subjective. Thus he joyfully recalls 
to himself that blessed manifestation, and is con- 
strained to testify for himself, and to declare to 
others, that they also may have such an expe- 
rience. ᾿Απαγγέλλειν — καταγγέλλειν, Acts xvii. 
27; δια---κηρύσσειν, Rom. x. 14, sq., cf. Matt. 
xxviii. 8.11; Acts xxvi. 20. In John’s writings, 
ὁρᾷν and μαρτυρεῖν are frequently joined together, 
Jno. 1. 84; iii. 82; xix. 35; but the last of these 
passages, like Jno. xv. 27, is without an object, 
which, however, may be readily supplied from 
the context. The object of the three verbs is 
the Eternal Life (Oecumenius, Liicke, Huther), 
and not only of ἀπαγγέλλειν (Fritsche, de Wette, 
Diisterdieck). The life is called eternal, ἡ αἰώνιος, 
because it did not take its beginning in the world, 
but rather gave a beginning to the world and the 
life in the world. It is Absolute Life, the source 
and root of all life in the world, physical and 
ethical (Liicke on Jno. i. 4). It was before it ap- 
peared, became visible; it did not become [come 
into being] perchance, when it appeared. On 
that account the Apostle adds ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν 
marépa.—The relative ἥτις is not—=7, but—wi que, 
hence, eternal life as which it was, thatis to say, 
which was (ἦν) as such before its revelation in 
the direction towards the Father, not with, along- 
side of Him; it denotes not a mere juxtaposition, 
but a being together, having mutual intercourse ; 
it is directed towards Him, turned to Him, long- 
ing for and leading to Him, according to its na- 
ture. It is not in the Father, but from Him, and 
hence directed towards Him. Here is asserted 
of the ζωή what Jno. i. 1 predicates of the λόγος; 
in Him truly is such life, in Him also it has be- 
come manifest. Because John had just had such 
a lively conception of the Life of the Logos, he 
was able to begin in the Neuter, ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς; 
for it ὦ without the world, before the world, with 
and for God in the Logos. 

And was manifested unto us.—Ziernal 
Life has appeared, and just now become manifest 
to us the Apostles. Thus closes the parenthesis 
with a return to the thought at the beginning, 
and it is because of this conclusion (ἐφανερώθη) 
that John resumes the interrupted sentence, the 
words ‘‘what we have seen and heard” be- 
ing placed before, and, in consequence of the 
prolonged interruption, breaks off and drops the 
series of clauses beginning with περὶ τοῦ λόγου, 
and resumes the first series of clauses, in a brief 
and concise form. The object is the same as in 
Wend 


CHAP. 


The Subject of the Annunciation, VuR. 3. 


On arayyéAAouev see the notes on vy. 2. 

Ver. 3a. Declare we also to you.—Kai 
ὑμῖν places the readers of this Epistle alongside 
of other Churches who had heard the Apostolical 
annunciation; hence John, in using the Plural in 
the verbs from vy. 1 onward and ἡμῖν in vy. 2, 
probably did not only refer to himself after the 
manner of authors, but to himself and his breth- 
ren, more particularly to the disciples of Jesus 
and the Apostles; the opposition of ἡμῖν and ὑμῖν 
is only the opposition of the first Christians and 
the immediate disciples of the Lord, or the Apos- 
tles and the Churches formed by the instrumen- 
tality of the former, or founded by the agency 
of the latter. John is fond of including himself 
among the whole of Christendom, ch. i. 6-8; ii. 
1. 28; iii. 1. But the comparison of Jno. xv. 
27 seems to render it probable that John in this 
place speaks of himself as connected with the 
Apostles, the reference being to the founding and 
conservation of Christian Churches. He does 
not stand alone, but like him all the Apostles have 
heard, seen and handled, and bear witness with 
him, 

Purpose of the Annunciation, Ver. 86. 


Ver. 3b. That ye also may have fellow- 
ship with us.—The word also, καὶ before ὑμεῖς 
after the preceding καὶ ὑμῖν, renders it very prom- 
inent that the purpose of the Apostolical annun- 
ciation is always and every where the same with 
all the Apostles in all Churches, namely: unity 
and fellowship. Fellowship with us is not the same 
as fellowship such as we have it, like us, with the 
Father and the Son (Socinus, Episcopius, Ben- 
gel). The position of the words forbids such a 
construction. It is rather the fellowship with us, 
the Church-fellowship of Christians among them- 
selves.—Merd (from μέσος, between, among) τίνος 
denotes the circle into which one enters, conse- 
quently cdexistence, whereas σύν τινε signifies 
connection with, coherence (so Kriiger). The 
Church of the first disciples, of the Apostles, is 
the primitive Church into which they must enter 
in order to partake [of its fellowship—M.]; 
mere connection with it is not sufficient. The 
Apostles are and remain the foundation on which 
we must take our stand (Eph. ii. 20), the media- 
tors who must take us by the hand (Eph. iv. 11. 
12); they are the stem out of which the Churches 
break forth and grow like branches. ΑἹ] (καὶ) 
the Churches are to be in Church-fellowship with 
the Apostles.—éyyre is not: acquire (Fritzsche), 
nor does it denote progress (& Lapide [who says: 
““nergere et in ed, κοινωνίᾳ, proficere et confirmari’”?— 
M.]), but indicates simply permanent possession, 
constancy. 

And our fellowship indeed is with the 
Father, etc.—x«ai does not connect with the pre- 
ceding clause, so that also that which follows de- 
pends on iva (Luther: and our fellowship be, so 
Augustine, Calvin, Grotius, Ebrard); for there 
is also a dé after κοινωνία [see Appar. Crit.. v. 3. 
5.—M.]. The reference, therefore, is to a Kow- 
wvia here as well as in the preceding clause, hence 
καὶ ἡ κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα ; but this fellowship is yet. 
another μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς, etc. The other stands 
in some sort of antithesis to this; it must go be- 
yond the former, and in it come to the latter, 


I. 144. 23 


hence δὲ, Similar is the construction, Jno. vi. 
51; viii. 17; Matt. xvi. 18; Mk. iv. 86; Lke. ii. 
85. Winer, p. 393. We have here a separate 
clause, in which ἐστί must be supplied, which 
adds a new and somewhat different particular, 
as if we did read: καὶ ἡμεῖς ἔχομεν κοινωνίαν μετὰ 
Tov πατρὸς κ. τ. λ., 80 that they have not only fel- 
lowship with the Apostles, but also with the 
Father and the Son. The thought itself forbids 
a close connection with iva. The purpose of the 
Apostolical annunciation is not to effect a union 
with the Father and the Son, for that is the office 
of Jesus Christ, the Mediator. The Apostle in- 
sists upon Church-fellowship, and that is suffi- 
cient, because in it is the fellowship with the 
Father and the Son; a fellowship with God in 
Christ is not to be created from Church-fellow- 
ship; the Church-fellowship is not without the 
former, and the former is in the latter; other- 
wise the Church-fellowship would be no Church- 
fellowship, the Apostolical fellowship, no fellow- 
ship with the Apostles. Κοινωνία is a fellowship 
with the Father and the Son, so that we form 
part of Them and are personally united with 
Them, They are in us and we in Them (Jno. xiv. 
23), Their Life is our Life (v. 6). Besides the 
Father, His Son Jesus Christ is particularly 
named, and thus the full designation of Him 6 
qv ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, of the λόγος τῆς ζωῆς serves to show 
His identity with the Incarnate Saviour; and 
thus the conclusion is found. Cf. Jno. xvii. 22— 
26. [This κοινωνία is one of essence and being, 
founded on the circumstance that its subjects are 
begotten of the same σπέρμα ϑεοῦ (1 Jno. iii. 9), 
and that the same power of a heavenly and glo- 
rified life animates them; so Sander. The defi- 
nition of Zuinglius deserves transcribing: ‘“ De 
qua loquatur societate, quodque intelligat consorti- 
um, exponit; non qua homines hominibus solum pace, 
concordia et amicitia fraterna juguntur, sed qua hom- 
ies Deo animo, mente atque adeo fide hic uniuntur 
indissolubiter et posthane cum eo aeternum viventes.. 
Hoc est quod Christus orat Patrem, Jo. xvii.” —M. ]. 


The Epistle and its Design, Vur. 4 


Ver. 4. And these things we write unto 
you.—And not only connects, but conti vues, 
leads us further, and marks the next progress; 
the fellowship just described promotes joy, ope- 
rates in the depth of the heart. Ταῦτα is neither 
what precedes (Sander), nor what follows imme- 
diately (Socinus), but the whole contents of the 
Epistle (Liicke, de Wette, Diisterdieck, Huther, 
Ebrard). John considers the Epistle with its 
contents as documentary evidence connected with 
the oral annunciation. 

We write.—Although the personal relation 
of the Apostle to the readers is here more prom- 
inent than in the Plurals of the preceding clauses, 
the Plural is not used, after the manner of au- 
thors, for the Singular. John continues im- 
pressed with the convictions of the common 
Apostolical annunciation; he knows that he is 
in perfect agreement with all the Apostles, that 
he speaks as they speak, and that their speech is. 
like his; nor does he stand alone, but has his as- 
sociates and assistants, like Paul (1 €or. i T; 
Παῦλος και Σωσθένης ὁ ἀδελφός; 2 Cor. i. 1; Col. i, 
1; Philem. 1, Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόϑεος; Phil. i. 1, 
Παῦλος καὶ Τεμόθεος δοῦλοι I. Xp.; 1 Thess. i 1; 


24 


2 Thess. i. 1: Παῦλος καὶ Σιλουανὸς καὶ Τιμόθεος). 
Writing is indeed another species of μαρτυρία, co- 
ordinate with oral communication. Bengel:— 
Testimonium genus; species due: annuntiatio et 
scriptio; annuntiatio ponit fundamentum, scriptio 
superedificat.”” The Epistle seems only to build 
up and perfect the life already existing in the 
readers. Diisterdieck. 

That your joy may be fulfilled.— The 
reading ἡμῶν would make the joy of the Apostles 
over the Churches [ἡ ¢., joy, because their word 
yields fruit among their hearers. Theophylact: 
“ἡμῶν yap ὑμῖν κοινωνούντων πλείστην ἔχομεν τὴν 
χαρὰν ἡμῶν, ἥν ταῖς ϑερισταῖς ὁ χαίρων σπορεὺς ἐν 
τῇ τοῦ μισθοῦ ἀπολήψει βραβεύσει, χαιρόντων καὶ 
τούτων ὅτι τῶν πόνων αὐτῶν arodabvovol.”—M. ]. 
So does Bede with reference to Phil. ii. 2: “gau- 
dium doctorum sit plenum, cum multos predicando ad 
sancte ecclesiz societatem perducant.”’ Jno. xvii. 13; 
xv. 11 cannot be adduced in support of this read- 
ing; said passages, besides the reason already 
stated above in Appar. Crit. [v. 4. 8—M.], may 
have suggested this reading. The identical lan- 
guage occurs at Jno. xvi. 24: ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ἢ 
πεπληρωμένη. To be sure, according to Jno. xv. 
11: ἵνα -ἡὴ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ καὶ ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν 
πληρωθῇ, the joy of Christians is the joy of 
Christ, of which they had become partakers. 
For Christ has in Himself the Life, Life eternal, 
true, full, unobstructed Life, which is happiness 
and peace. Whoso derives Life from Christ be- 
comes a convalescent, recovers health, the health 
of the soul, and that is peace and joy. Surely, he 
who is holy, must be happy, and none but the 
holy and sanctified are happy. If Christ’s high- 
priestly intercession (Jno. xvii. 13) still continues 
the object and ground of great joy, it contem- 
plates also the growth of joy in individuals going 
on to eternity, even as John remarks in a private 
Epistle addressed to a friend (2 Jno. 12).—Hence 
Christ speaks of His joy, which shall become 
our joy, even as Christ’s Life shall become our 
Life through faith; hence χαρὰ πίστεως, Phil. i. 
25.—Given is the joy by Him, but only like a 
grain of wheat, which must grow in order to be- 
come perfect and to yield fruit. But that which 
is to be perfected must exist. The perfection, 
however, is not instantaneous, magical or mirac- 
ulous, but has its stages and maladies of devel- 
opment,—struggles—dangers; hence: 7 πεπληρω- 
μένη. Now this takes place in the fellowship, 
both in that of the Church and in that with the 
Father and the Son; there, joy is not only atran- 
sient emotion, but an habitual state becoming ever 
more perfect. Luther (Schol. ed. Bruns.) :— 
“ Principium hujus gaudii est, quum incipimus cre- 
dere; postea quum fides augescit meditando, docendo, 
studendo, tum fit plenum gaudium.’ The reason 
why the Apostle dwells on joy (χαρὰ) rather than 
on peace, may be that at the beginning of the 
Epistle he thinks with reference to the readers 
of the greeting, χαίρειν, which, apart from the 
Epistle of Claudius Lysias to Felix (Acts xxiii. 
26-80), occurs only in the circular of the Apos- 
tles at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv. 23) 
and at Jamesi. 1. [Wordsworth contrasts the 
πλήρωμα χαρᾶς with the πλήρωμα of the Gnostics. 

[Diisterdieck:—‘‘The peace of reconciliation, 
the blessed consciousness of sonship, the happy 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


-ἤἤἤ 


growth in holiness, the bright prospect of future 
completion and glory,—all these are but simple 
details of that which in all its length and breadth 
is embraced by one word, Eternal Life, the real 
possession of which is the immediate source of 
our joy. We have joy, Christ’s joy, because we 
are blessed, because we have Life itself in 
Christ.” Compare the beautiful extract from 
Augustine, below in Doctrinal and Ethical, No. 7. 
—M.] 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. On the word λόγος ef. J. P. Lange on Jno. 
i. 1, Vol. IV., p. 41, sq., of the Bibelwerk, Ger- 
man edition.—It is characteristic of John, and 
perfectly analogous to the Gospel, to start from 
the historical stand-point, vv. 1. 2. 8., ef. Jno. i. 
14, and draw the @ posteriori conclusion of the 
Eternal Being and Nature, and then taking there, 
as it were, a firm position, to trace the epiphanies 
and operations of the Logos in the world, in time 
andamong men. On this account the Apostle be- 
gins here, as in the Gospel, with the Préexistence 
of the Logos (ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἡ Cah ἡ ἀιώνιος, ἥτις 
ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα). He does not lose himself in 
the genesis of the Logos, like the Gnostics with 
their theogonies, but only dwells upon His Being, 
as Cw7 αἰώνιος, in relation to the Father (πρὸς τὸν 
πατέρα). Hence we must not connect the λόγος 
and the ζωὴ as a (third) syzygy with Valentinus 
(1160 on the island of Cyprus), “that most pro- 
found, spiritual, thoughtful, intelligent and im- 
aginative”’ Gnostic (see Gieseler, K. G., L., p. 
155; particularly Kurtz, Δ΄. G@., 1., 136, sqq.). 
Eternal, true, full life is only the Being of the 
Logos, as it is the Being of the Father. But this 
Life He has not only in Himself as a possession, 
as Jno. i. 4: ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, but He Himself was 
truly and altogether Life, eternal Life in His Be- 
ing (v. 2), of the same Life-substance with God 
the Father, indissolubly united with Him, al- 
though different from Him in Person, there is 
nothing in Him which is not likewise in the 
Father, but He is self-dependent, turned to and 
belonging to the Father (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα). 

2. Threefold is the mode of existence of the Lo- 
gos: a. anterior to the world of time; ὁ. earthly- 
human ; 6. glorified. The first is made prominent 
in the beginning of this Epistle: ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, 
ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, the second is intimated in égave- 
ρώθη, and in conjunction with the third in υἱὸς 
αὐτοῦ "Incov Χριστοῦ. For λόγος and υἱός are to be 
distinguished, so that the historical Christ is 
called Son, cf. vv. 1. 3 with Jno. i. 1.14. But 
in reality it isthe same Person. The incarnate 
Logos does not become the Son of God, and this 
designation is not so much of ethical as of meta- 
physical import. He is called and is the Son of 
God only because of the relation essential to His 
Person, and of His eternal and ante-temporal re- 
lation to God. 

8, The humanity of the Logos is referred to 
with marked emphasis, in the terms ἀκούειν, ὁρᾶν, 
ϑεᾷσθαι, ψηλαφᾶν, vy. 1. 2.8. The Son of Man 
has become audible, visible, sensible to the chil- 
dren of men. His being ἐφανερώθη to the disci- 
ples was only brought about by His human na- 
ture, but so that He really σὰρξ ἐγένετο and 


CHAP. I. 1-4. 


26 


ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (Jno. i. 14). Heis perfect man. 
But His becoming man is not brought out as 
much by John as by the other Apostles with re- 
ference to His humiliation, because John recog- 
nized the Divine glory in the form of the Ser- 
vant, the Divine attributes in the form of His 
human appearing, sought their traces with pecu- 
liar love, and found them with a jubilant soul. 
John was more concerned with what the Son of 
God brought with Him, His eternal Life which 
He had in Himself, than with what He did as- 
sume, human flesh and blood. The Apostle sees 
in all the epiphanies and exhibitions of the In- 
carnate One, in all the humiliations of His 
earthly-human Being and Life, the Love, the 
Wisdom and the Power of Christ; he follows 
their traces with ardent attachment, and he fol- 
lows them notinvain. He bears more testimony 
to the κρύψις than the κένωσις, but also more to 
the Lutheran intermixture [German: Into-one- 
another—M.] of the Divine and the Human in 
Christ.—Traces of the transcendency and imma- 
nency of God may also be found and proved 
here, and how both have to be held fast together. 

4. Christ is the eternal principle of the life of 
men and of the world in general; He is the Me- 
diator of all the activity of the Father exerted 
with reference to the world. The thought ex- 
pressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews by φέρων 
τὰ πάντα TO ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως avTov is the funda- 
mental pre-supposition of ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ζωὴ 
αἰώνιος, ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, κοινωνία μετὰ τοῦ 
πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as 
well as of ἵνα---πεπληρωμένη. John, by the use of 
an’ apxic—,which, as opposed to ἐν ἀρχῇ, Ino. i. 
1, within the beginning, points as a definite 
sphere, and as opposed to κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς (Heb. i. 10) 
along the beginnings, following the beginnings, 
—points, although fastened to a longer line, more 
than ἐξ ἀρχῆς, Jno. vi. 64, out of the beginning 
as out of a fountain, to a source of history after 
the beginning—intends to mark the power exist- 
ing in eternity as present and real in time and 
the course of history. [The peculiarly involved 
and occasionally obscure style of Dr. Braune will 
tax the patience of the reader, as it does that of 
the translator, who tries his best to express B’s 
meaning in idiomatic English. The last sentence 
was peculiarly difficult, but the use of dashes and 
other marks of punctuation will, it is hoped, en- 
able the reader to catch the author’s meaning.— 
M.]. But it must be remembered that the Apos- 
tle is more concerned with the life of individuals, 
of the Apostles and of Churches, than with that 
of the whole world. Still what holds good in the 
case of individual man, the microcosm, must also 
apply to the whole world, the macrocosm. Christ 
could not be the principle of salvation to indi- 
viduals, unless He were potent and destined for 
the whole world. Because in the creation He is 
the Mediator of the beginning of the world’s life 
(Jno. i. 8) so also in the redemption He is of 
course the Mediator of the consummation of the 
world’s life. The earth requires no new suns, 
and mankind no other Saviour. The truth of 
Christ is the only and eternal truth for all na- 
tions and times. Christ is not a world-historical 
personage, like Alexander the Great, but the 
Living One that has the keys of hell and of death 
(Rev. i. 18). 


4. Ver. 3 indicates the relation of Churchliness 
and Christianness, of Church-dom and Christianity, 
[1 am not altogether satisfied with these terms, 
but they express as nearly as possible the Ger- 
man words, Kirchlichkeit, the quality of being 
Church-like, Christlichkeit, the quality of being 
Christ-like, or Christian, Kirchenthum, the state, 
existence or establishment of the Church, and 
Christenthum, the religion taught by Christ.—M. ] 
For ἡ κοινωνία pe? ἡμῶν, the fellowship of the 
Churches with the Apostles and among themselves 
is Church, while κοινωνία μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ 
υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ denotes the nature 
of Christianity. John insists only on Church- 
fellowship for the promotion of Christianness. 
It is Apostolical that the Churches should keep 
to the Apostles and their annunciation, and be 
united among each other without independentism, 
but it is equally and only Apostolical that the 
Christ-like or the Christian-like should be the 
basis and aim of the Churchly. The Churchly 
must ever be measured and adjusted by the 
Christ-like. 

5. The Church is a whole, an organization em- 
bracing heaven and earth in the Church militant 
and triumphant, and in the Church militant all 
the different local Churches (καὶ ὑμῖν, καὶ ὑμεῖς, 
v. 3), and all the Churches of all centuries (aray- 
γέλλομεν) gathered by the Apostolical ministry 
in general, with its continuous activity (Liicke). 
What Paul says (1 Cor. iii. 9-11. 16; Eph. ii. 20 
sq.; cf. 1 Peter ii. 5) of the Church, that it is a 
building of the temple of God founded on Christ 
the corner-stone, or a body of which Christ is the 
head (Eph. i. 22 sq.; v. 23; Col. i. 18), is here 
also present to the mind of John, who, with a 
leaning to John xv. 1, seems to think of a growth, 
in which the Church is the stem founded by 
Christ, out of which believers come forth on all 
sides like branches (John xvii. 20). 

6. The Apostolical annunciation, ἀπαγγελία, pre- 
supposes an eventful experience from personal 
intercourse with the Redeemer, and is accompa- 
nied by the Apostolical writings (γραφόμεν). All 
information derived from oral communication 
must be strengthened, guided, cleared and com- 
pleted by the written communication. He only 
is able to work for the Lord and the brethren 
that has lived with Him in intimate converse, to 
whom He did yield Himself and whom he did 
draw to Himself, so that he ‘*cannot but speak 
the things which he has seen and heard,” (Acts 
iv. 19. 20). 

7. Joy is the essence of Christianity. Augus- 
tine, Conf., 10, 22, says: ‘(Est enim gaudium, quod 
non datur impiis, sed tis tantum, qui te gratis colunt, 
quorum gaudium tu ipse es. Zt ipsa est beata vita 
gaudere ad te, de te, propter te, ipsa est et non al- 
tera.”’—The Christian faith does not move in a 
circle of different objects, thoughts, words and 
works, some of which must be done and others 
shunned; but it moves in that which it does 
gladly, and shuns that which it scorns to do. 
The Word and Life of Christ are as much the 
Christian’s element as air is the element of birds, 
and water that of fishes. The exercises of god- 
liness are to him not charms against an evil, or 
the worship of God a slave-work, or prayer a 
burden. The godliness, which is kindled by the 
loving-kindness of God is true happiness and 


26 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


felicity. The fear of God does not bring to the 
Christian gloomy self-denial and renouncing of 
the world, as if the Christian’s life consisted 
solely in the suppression of ardent desires and 
want, but in joys which he experiences, accord- 
ing to the exhortation of the Apostle Paul in the 
Epistle for the fourth Sunday in Advent (Phil. 
iv. 4): ‘Rejoice in the Lord alway; and again I 
say rejoice.” Or according to the Lord’s promise 
in the Gospel for the third Sunday after Easter 
* (John xvi. 22): ‘‘Your heart shall rejoice, and your 
joy no man taketh from you.” Hence the reite- 
rated monition: ‘‘ Be not afraid,” and the promise 
of the Comforter and of peace. In the praise 
and love of God we have a token and a standard 
of true Christianity. Delight in the Lord (Ps. 
xxxvii. 4) with His creating, preserving, over- 
ruling, pardoning, atoning and glorifying (John 
iii. 2) love, is the Christian’s duty and life. Only 
that he ABIDE, AND THE JOY OF CHRIST ABIDE IN 
HIM, AND THAT HIS JOY MAY BE FULL (John xv. 
1-11). 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Seek Jesus and His light; all without that is 
unprofitable.—Seek in all your experience in 
time for that which is from all eternity.—Seek 
in all sensuous manifestations for the supersen- 
suous kernel with its life, which continues to 
all eternity, even as it is from all eternity.—No- 
thing is more sure than that which is of Christ: 
He is from all eternity, and brings His own into 
the Kingdom of the Father.—Learn more and 
more that God is not only above thee, but in the 
world, not far from thee, but very nigh thee.— 
Speak of Christ only as His witness. Speak of 
Him, because thou hast known and felt Him 
within thee, not because thou art a preacher or 
a theologian, or because thou art baptized.—Do 
not despise Church-fellowship ; it contains a bless- 
ing, even an eternal blessing.—Be not satisfied 
with thy churchliness (churchmanship) unless 
it make thee more happy in, and more sure of the 
Father and the Son.—Christian knowledge, like 
all science, is possible only in fellowship with 
the whole, especially in going back to the foun- 
tain-head in the writings and the testimony of 
the Apostles.—Holiness and joy are indissolubly 
united in the Christian, but impiety and lust in 
the worldly-minded.—Be ashamed, if for want 
of faith or courage, or even because of a despond- 
ing mind, thou dost not rejoice in thy Lord.—Be 
afraid lest thy joy in Christ and the Kingdom of 
heaven decrease.—Strive that thy joy in Christ 
grow fuller and fuller. Delight in the Lord is 
thy duty, in order that thy duty become thy joy 
and honour, not thy task and burden.—A Chris- 
tian must be joyful, for his is the truth which 
maketh free, the righteousness that availeth with 
God, the liberty of the children of God, the peace 
that passeth all understanding, the joy that no 
man may take away, the Divine sonship and in- 
heritance, the life which death cannot kill, and 
the happiness which endureth and groweth for- 
ever. 

SrarKE:—Christ is Absolute Life, and our life 
depends upon Him, not only this earthly life, but 
also blessed, eternal life through faith in Him.— 
He that despises the word of the Gospel, despises 


also the Absolute Word of God, for Christ is the 
star and kernel of the whole Bible.—Christ liveth, 
and the believers shall live too. Glorious conso- 
lation! Mighty strengthening of our faith, in 
adversity and temptation and in the hour of 
death! Because Life and Light have appeared 
unto us in Christ Jesus, we should most diligently 
use them, for sure he will be without excuse that 
notwithstanding remaineth in darkness and blind- 
ness.—What shall it profit an unconverted teacher, 
to testify of Christ the Life, and to urge the peo- 
ple to receive Him, if he himself remains in death 
and in his life and by his works denies Him?— 
In order to be saved, it is not enough that a man 
know and believe Christ to have come into the 
world, but he must know and believe Him to have 
also risen and shone as the Morning-star in 
his heart.—The design of the Gospel is to lead 
men to fulness of joy, for God has not called us 
to sadness, but to joy.—If our joy turns some- 
times into sorrow when affliction without and 
temptation within, as it were, threaten to take 
it by storm, we know, for our edification and com- 
fort, that Christ will come again and turn our 
sorrow into joy. [Cf. Dr. Muhlenberg’s hymn, 
“7 would not live alway.” —M. ; 

Sprner:—Our life in Christ is eternal life, and 
out of (extra) Him there is no life; although hid- 
den now, it shall be revealed hereafter.—The Di- 
vine word of the Gospel is given unto us for the 
purpose of restoring us to the fellowship with 
God, and it is therefore an inestimable benefit 
that it gives us not only the knowledge of certain 
truths, but actually bestows upon us the blessings 
which it announces.—The written Word of God 
is not less potent to produce faith than the 
preached word, and this Word the Apostles have 
left us as a legacy which may be heard and read 
at all times, and therefore we ought to consider 
the written Word as more sure and trusty than 
the declarations of men. 

LanGe:—In spiritual matters every man should 
for himself examine and understand the truths 
of God, and not blindly believe the report of 
others, lest like a blind man he be led astray and 
miserably cheated.—All human fellowship should 
be so arranged and constituted that it do not op- 
pose the fellowship with God. We should regard 
the Epistles of the Apostles as Epistles of God 
addressed to ourselves, and know that they are 
most surely addressed to us in order that we may 
become, as it were, living Epistles of God, known 
and read of all men. 

Brsser:—There is no fellowship with the Head 
of the Church apart from the instrumentality of 
the joints of the Apostles. Those who are in- 
serted in the edifice of the Church, rest upon the 
foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with 
Jesus Christ Himself as the chief corner-stone.— 
Out of infinite Love the Son of God became what 
we are, in order that He might give us power to 
become what He is; He became partaker of our 
nature, that we should become partakers of the 
Divine nature. (Irenzus.) 

Hevusner:—Christianity demands a solemn and 
deep contemplation wholly absorbed in Christ 
[or entering into Christ.—M.]; hasty and super- 
ficial looking and hurrying away is unprofitable; 
Christianity wants profound natures.—Christi- 
anity rests mainly on facts, as external revela- 


CHAP I. 1-4. 


27 


a ee Ὃν 


tions of God, in order that thus the Godhead may 
become visible to the sensuous man [to our 
senses.—M.], without any injury being done to 
its dignity.—The Apostles as such eye-and-ear- 
witnesses are also most sure and reliable, and it 
is impossible that their account of so many facts, 
their harmonious and many-sided account, could 
have been fabricated or be spurious.—These 
Apostolical writings compensate us for that which 
we can no longer see with our own eyes. We 
have, moreover, the testimony of the Church for 
those facts, for without them it [the Church.— 
M.] could not have come into existence.—The 
vocation of the Apostles was most philanthropic 
and beneficent: the design of their testimony and 
of the preached Gospel in general, is to lead all 
men to the fellowship of the same life which was 
enjoyed by the Apostles. The Apostles did not 
wish to keep their life to themselves, but loved 
to communicate it. The true nature of life is its 
impulse, wherever it is, to pour itself into others. 
The Apostles were to the first Christians, and 
are still to all Christians, channels and conduc- 
tors to the Life Eternal; without the Apostles we 
should have neither Christ nor Christianity. 
The Apostles conduct us to it. Those who reject 
the Apostles and their testimony, cannot reason- 
ably continue to discourse of Christianity; they 
have only left to them a Christianity of their own 
making.—Holy Scripture is a standing monu- 
ment of history that may not be interpolated; it 
remains a pure and ever-accessible fountain; 
oral delivery would have grown more and more 
unreliable, the memory would have lost much, 
and our delight in the enjoyment of the Gospel 
would have lessened.—The evangelical history 
the most sublime history: 1. We will convince 
ourselves of it, ἐξ comes from God, continues in God, 
and leads us to God; and, 2. Lay to heart the con- 
clusions we draw: behold the poverty of those 
who despise and neglect it! Give more attention 
and diligence to it! ν᾽ 

Christian joy is from its very nature the high- 
est joy. For, 

I. a. Whence is it? Of God, of heavenly origin. 
ὃ. What does it aim at? The eternal salvation of 
our souls. 6. For whom does it exist? For all in 
the same manner (without exception). 

II. (Conditions on our part): a. Acquire a 
thorough understanding of the truth that sin is our 
common misery, and that none can save us there- 
from but Jesus Christ alone. ὁ. Believe in Jesus, 
the Son of God. 6. Animate this faith by habits 
of devotion. 

The Apostolical testimony of the Word of Life.— 
1. How it is attested (as to its verification); 2. 
How joyful it is (as to its object: the Life was 
manifested, and as to its effects: Fellowship of 
Christians among themselves and with God). 

The firm foundation of our faith.—It rests, 1, 
upon the Apostolical annunciation of the witnesses 
of Him who is the Beginner, Fulfiller and Ob- 
ject of our faith (v.1); 2, on its joyful object 


(contents, German) vy. 2, which could not have 
spontaneously entered into any man’s heart; 
3, on the testimony of the Holy Ghost in those who 
receive the word of faith from the lips of the 
aforesaid witnesses. 

Spurgeon :—lIt is indeed written (Prov. xiv. 
10): “Α stranger doth not intermeddle with his 
joy.” The secret is with them that fear Him, 
and their joy no man taketh from them. But 
we would remind you of the proverb, “Still 
waters run deep.” The brook rushing over the 
stones dries up in summer, but the deep river 
flows uniformly along in freshets, or in heat and 
drought, and yet glides calmly through the 
fields. We do not speak or boast so loudly of 
our joys, as you do of your pleasures, because it 
is unnecessary; ours are as well known in 
silence as in lively company. We do not want 
your company to indulge our joy, still less the 
manifold condiments with which you try to fla- 
vour your joy. We require no cups, no banquets, 
no fiddles, no dance in order to be joyful.—Our 
joy does not depend on transitory things, but 
rests in the eternal, unchangeable Creator of all 
things. I know very well, notwithstanding all we 
shall say, the slander will continue that the chil- 
dren of God are a wretched people.—We have 
joy, we have delights, so precious that we would 
not exchange an ounce of ours with a ship-load 
of yours; not drops of our delight for rivers of 
your pleasures. Our delight is not tinsel, 
painted joy, but solid reality; our joys are such 
as we take along with us to our quiet resting 
place beneath the dust; joys which sleep with us 
in the grave and will wake with us in eternity, 
joys on which we may courageously look back, 
and which, therefore, we enjoy a second time in 
memory; joys also which we enjoy beforehand, 
and know already here below as the antepast of 
eternal joy and delight. Our joys are no soap- 
bubbles which only glitter and sparkle in divers 
colours in order to burst, they are no apples of 
Sodom which crumble in your hand into ashes; 
true joys are real, true, solid, lasting, enduring, 
eternal! What more shallI say? Joy and true 
piety are eternally joined together like root and 
blossoms, as inseparably as truth and assurance; 
they are indeed two precious jewels, set side by 
side in the same gold setting.” 

[Sermons and Sermon- Themes: 

Cu. 1. U. Binnine, Hucu: Fellowship with 
God, or twenty-eight sermons on the first and 
second chapters of the first Epistle of St. John. 
Works, II., 177. 

Vv. 1-3. Mitt, W. H.: The Word Incarnate, 
the essential basis of individual and social Chris- 
tianity. Sermons, (Advent, 1846), I. 

Ver. 8. The same author: The Word Incarnate 
in the totality of His exhibition in the Church, 
the true centre of Christianity. Sermons, (Ad- 
vent, 1846), XXVIII. 

BRaviey, C.: Fellowship with God. Sacra- 
mental, 216.—M. ] 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


II. PRINCIPAL PART THE FIRST. 
Cuapter I. 6-II. 28. 


IF YE WALK IN THE LIGHT (I. 5-II. 2)—OBEDIENT TO HIS LAW IN GENERAL (II. 2-6), 
AND TO THE COMMANDMENT OF BROTHERLY LOVE IN PARTICULAR (II. 7-14), NOT 
MISLED BY THE LUSTS (II. 15-17) AND THE LIES OF THE WORLD (II. 18-23) YE 


SHALL ABIDE BEFORE CHRIST. 


1. Leading thought: God is Light. 


5 This then is! the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you,? that 
God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 


[German :—And this is the message, which we have heard from Him, and announce you again, that God is 
Light and darkness in Him is none whatsoever.—M. 
Verse 5. ἸἹἔστιν αὕτη, B.C. G. K., Cod. Sin., al. [Syr., Theoph., Oecumen., Tischend., Buttmann, Wordsw. καὶ 
αὕτη ἐστὶ, A., Vulg., Lachm., Rec.; this is altered from the original reading.—M.] 
2 Instead of ay yeAca, A. B. G., al. [Griesb., Scholz., Lachm., Tischend., Wordsw.—M.] we find ἐπαγγελία 
in C., and in Cod. Sin., over amayyeAca, the following correction, probably emanating from the tran- 
scriber himself: ἀγάπη τῆς ἐπαγγελίας; but a later hand has added ayyeAca as the right 


reading. 


[3ἀναγγέλλομ εν, REnuntiamus, announce again, REport (Lillie). Declare, E. V., is too weak, it denotes a 


repetition of an announcement already made and known, brought out by the preposition ava. 


See the 


notes of Bengel and Erasmus in Hxegetical and Critical_—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 5. And is not like οὖν (igitur, Beza) or 
δὲ (Episcopius); for it is neither an inference, 
nor even a delicate antithesis; it simply connects 
with the preceding, as does καὶ---γράφομεν, v. 4, 
with ἀπαγγέλλομεν, and while ταῦτα points to the 
contents of the now opening Epistle, καὶ connects 
with the exordium, in which preparation is made 
for what follows, and airy ἡ ἀγγελία points to the 
subsequent words [ὅτε ὁ ϑεὸς x. τ. A.—M. ]. 

This is the message.—Contrary to the usual 
position of the words (airy ἐστίν, ch. ii. 25; iii. 
11. 28: iv. 3; v. 11. 14, ef. Jno. xvii. 8), ἐστιν is 
emphatically placed first to denote the existence 
and reality of the message. The poorly authen- 
ticated reading ἐπαγγελία is very awkward, the 
word denoting not annunciation (Oecumen., Beza, 
de Wette contrary to the grammatical usage of 
the N. T.), either here or elsewhere (ch. ii. 24; 
ili. 11; cf. var. 2 Tim. i. 1; Acts xxiii. 81), and 
if taken in the sense of promise would have re- 
quired here anenlargement of thethought. Calov: 
non jubemur tantum in luce ambulare ac mundari 
sanguine Christi, sed utriusque etiam gratia nobis 
promittitur, illius per Spiritus Sancti illuminationem, 
hujus per expiationis Christi applicationem; quia 
utraque fruimur per beatam cum Deo et Christo com- 
munionem. [Huther thinks that the reading 
ἐπαγγελία in the sense of promise might be justi- 
fied on the ground that every announcement of 
the New Testament is fraught with promise, and 
cites Spener, who says: ‘‘ Promise, as the sequel 
indeed conceals a promise. God is not only a 
light in Himself, but He is also the light of be- 
lievers. And that is the promise.””—M. ].—aray- 
yeAia, which occurs no where in the New Testa- 
ment, as Socinus and Episcopius read, is an ar- 
bitrary correction. The outwardly best authen- 
ticated reading is strongly supported by the con- 
text, for it seems to réecho in the following 
avayyéAAouev: the message of Christ is announced 


again by His Apostles. Erasmus: ‘‘ Quod filius 
annunciavit a patre, hoc Apostolus acceptum a filio 
REnuUnCiat nobis.” 

Which we have heard from Him.—The 
Apostle alludes to v. 1. He thinks of the first 
disciples, and more particularly of the Apostles. 
Hence both the ἀγγελία, the ἀκηκόαμεν, and the 
contents “of the message: ὁ ϑεός x. τ. A., suggest 
the reference to Jesus, the Christ; this is also 
rendered necessary by the preposition ἀπό, which 
indicates the Prophet-speaker, the Person of the 
Master, on whose lips the Apostles hang as 
hearers and disciples. John uses ἀκούειν παρά, 
ch. viii. 26. 40; xy. 15, but there it is the Father 
who speaks and the Son who hears; this (παρὰ) 
presupposes the nearness, the being together, 
and had to be used when the Son was hearing the 
Father, the other (ἀπό) denotes distance, and 
could hardly have been used in the aforecited 
passages; παρὰ points also to familiarity, ἀπό 
only to derivation in general. αὐτοῦ denotes, 
with reference to v. 3: τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, Christ; 
the assertion that αὐτοῦ, as distinguished from 
ἐκεῖνος, which always relates to Christ, invariably 
refers to the Father (Paulus, Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius)is incorrect. Thesense thenis: From Him, 
the Incarnate Son of God, whom we have heard, 
etc., v. 1, we have received the message concern- 
ing God the Father (Diisterdieck, Huther). So- 
cinus, who takes the relation of God and Christ 
not as conjunctio essentix, but only as conjunctio 
voluntatis et rerum aliarum omnium, understands 
a Deo et Christo, i. e., a Deo per Christum, thus 
representing Christ as the mere mediator and not 
as the author of the message. 

And announce to you again.—Next to the 
note of Erasmus, as quoted above, we cite the 
admirable exposition of Bengel: ‘*Quxe in ore 
Christi fuit ἀγγελία eam apostoli ἀγγέλλουσι ; nam 
ἀγγέλιαν ab Ipso acceptam reddunt et propagant.” 
ἀναγγέλλειν is not exactly —arayyéAder, the latter 
denotes to continue announcing [rather to bear 
tidings from one person (ἀπὸ) to another—M.], 


CHAP. I. 5. 


29 


the former to announce anew, back, again, as in 
Jno. iv. 25; xvi. 25, where, however, ἀπαγγελῶ 
is the more authentic reading. As our Lord con- 
versed with the Syrophcenician woman as the 
Messenger of God REporting what the Father had 
told Him before, so the Apostles report what the 
Lord had told them before (Jno. xx. 21). 

God is light.—This is the substance of the 
ἀγγελία. But Christ did not say so, although He 
called Himself the Light, Jno. xii. 12; xv. 46; 
and speaks of the children of the Light (Jno. viii. 
36), even as James refers to the Father of the 
Lights, τῶν φώτων, Jas. i. 17, see the note above 
ad loc. But Christ, as the Son of God, is ἀπαύ- 
γασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ 
(Heb. i. 2), and this itis which John and his fel- 
low Apostles (v. 1) had heard, seen and gazed 
upon, so that the sum-total and centre of the 
message of Christ, as well as His personal mani- 
festation and revelation in the flesh, may truly 
be expressed in the words “‘ God is Light.” Christ 
reveals this, but no philosopher is able to find it; 
without Christ the wise men of the world pass it 
by. It is not a@ light, as Luther translates, as if 
there were other lights beside and out of Him. 
The Being of God is Light. Neither isit in the 
light, as if it were only surrounding Him, nor as 
the Light. Itis not secundum similitudinem (Bul- 
linger), but secundum substantiam. Light is His 
garment (Ps. civ. 2); Ezekiel (ch. i.) and Habak- 
kuk (111. ὁ, sqq.) beheld the glory of the Lord as 
fire, pure and bright as lightning. He is not 
only the Author of light, to whom belongs His 
first creative fiat (Gen. i. 3), but the Father of all 
light (Jas. i. 17), a mighty sphere of light sur- 
rounds Him (1 Tim. vi. 16); and the marvellous 
light wherein Christians walk is God’s (1 Pet. ii. 
9). This sentence is parallel to the sentence: 
“« God is Love” (ch. iv. 8. 16), with the same fun- 
damental thought, although in the one instance 
the expression is figurative, and in the other lit- 
eral, and the figurative expression lays peculiar 
emphasis on one side of the Divine Being, and 
this, on account of the antithesis in the following 
verses (vv. 6-10), is also holiness, perfect pure- 
ness, but not omniscience, as Calov maintains, 
although in Dan. ii. 22 light is the symbol of the 
omniscience of God; it may include, however, 
the wisdom of God. [Alford:—*‘ Of all material 
objects, light is that which most easily passes 
into an ethical predicative without even the pro- 
cess, in our thought, of interpretation. It unites 
in itself purity, and clearness, and beauty, and 
glory, as no other material object does; it is the 
condition of all material life and growth and joy. 
And the application to God of such a predicative 
requires no transference. He is Light, and the 
fountain of light material and ethical. In the 
one world, darkness is the absence of light; in 
the other, darkness, untruthfulness, deceit, false- 
hood, is the absence of God. They who are in 
communion with God, and walk with God, are 
the light, and walk in the light.”—M. ] 

And darkness in Him is none whatso- 
ever.—This second negative member, stated 
with marked emphasis (οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία, similar 
to John xv. 5, see Winer, p. 521. [*The two ne- 
gations produce one negation, which is the more 
frequent case, and serve, originally, to make the 
principal negation more distinct and forcible, 


and exhibit the sentence as negative in all its 
parts.” —M.]), rejects any and every darkness, 
7. 6.57 impureness [or absence of all admixture.— 
M.]. Oecumenius: ἤτοι τὴν ἄγνοιαν, ἢ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. 
Rather both: neither an untruth or a lie, nor 
any sin isin Him. The fulness of the reference 
contained in this expression is brought out by 
Lorinus in the following passage cited by Huther: 
‘‘Deus lux est, quia clarissime se ipsum percipit, om- 
niaque in se ipse, ulpote prima et ipsissima, veritas ; 
quia summe bonus, ac summa et ipsissima bonitas ; 
jidelis absque ulla iniquitate, justus et rectus, quia 
fons omnis lucis in aliis, 7. e., veritatis atque virtutis, 
non solum illustrans mentem, docensque quid agendum 
sit, verum etiam operans in nobis, ut agemus et sic 
radius suis liberans mentem ab ignorantie tenebris, 
purgans a pravitate voluntatem.’’—John’s specula- 
tion or mysticism is so thoroughly ethical, that 
he is solely concerned with the practical working 
out of the truth: ‘God is Light.” As he con- 
nects this sentiment with the preceding by καὶ, 
namely, the fellowship with the Father and the 
Son, so he develops the nature of this fellowship- 
life in the sequel (vy. 6-ii. 28). Now, since the 
nature of this fellowship and of the life in it de- 
pend upon the nature of the Father, he begins 
with the leading thought (v. 5) and with reference 
to errors in a sentence of two members, the one 
positive, the other negative. [Huther: ‘John 
properly makes the truth that God is Light, as 
the chief substance of the ἀγγελία of Christ, the 
starting-point of his development; for it is the 
essential basis of Christianity, both as to its ob- 
jective and subjective substance, and it involves 
both the consummation of sin and the redemption 
from sin by the incarnation and death of Christ; 
both the necessity of repentance and faith and 
the moral problem of the Christian life.”—M. ] 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Monotheism and the absolute personal existence 
of God are with John two chief points, which 
may be also identified here, although one side only 
is made prominent. Of the two sentences, ‘God 
is Spirit” (John iv. 24), and “God is Love” (1 
John iv. 8. 16),—the former denoting the Being 
of God physically, the latter ethically; the former 
describing the nature and substance, the latter 


the character of God,—the second only will have 


to be connected with the sentence, ‘‘Godis Light,” 
and thus be further defined by a metaphorical 
expression. Spirit and Love are indeed correla- 
tive fundamental ideas, since Spirit denotes ‘‘free 
self-glory in self-consciousness and spontaneity 
over a substantial fulness of real vital powers,” 
and Love “free self-surrender with conscious and 
intentional conservation of the essential original 
determinateness both of oneself and of others” 
(Plitt). But the phrase “God is Light,” declares 
‘‘the superiority of God to all sensuous wants” 
(Késtlin), the holiness of God, and thus defines 
further the character of God, His Love, and this 
as a holy Love, while it enables us to take the 
Love of God as contemplating also the communi- 
cation of His Holiness. We may add, ‘‘God is— 
eternal Life” (vy. 20) as a correlative, so that His 
Love as well as His Holiness are live. There is 
NO MANNER of darkness in Him. He is not a God 


30 


in process of being coming to Himself in the his- 
tory of creation, the world or in the spirit of 
man, as Plato maintains: He is operative prior 
to all the ὕλη of Plato, or the dark Urgrund of 
Schelling, as a self-conscious, holy, loving and 
living God. Nor has sin, evil, its original begin- 
ning in Him, as wae taught by the Gnostics in 
their doctrine of emanations. [Wordsworth: “A 
sentence opposed to the error of most of the Gnos- 
tics, who asserted the existence of two hostile 
Deities, one a God of Light, the other of Darkness. 
Trenzeus I., 25. 28,ed Grabe. Theodoret, Heret., 
fab. prem. Epiphan., Heres, XXVI., cf. Ittig. 
Heres, p. 34; note in his Comment. on John i. 5; 
and Bp. Andrewes, III., pp. 371-376. Almost 
all the Gnostics adopted the theory of dualism, 
derived from the Magians, and afterwards de- 
veloped by the Marcionites and Manichzans.””— 
M. 

Ἅ God is Iight—must not be taken as a notice, 
a truth without reality, a reality without effi- 
ciency. As the sentence ‘‘God.is Spirit” (John 
iv. 24) is immediately followed by ‘‘and those 
who worship Him, must worship Him in Spirit 
and in truth,”’ so this sentence must be taken as 
a principle, the application of which is contained 
in the sequel. The sentence is through and 
through ethical and practical. John wants no 
science without practice. He does not allow an 
enlightenment of the mind without a correspond- 
ing bias and purifying of the will. 

3. The question ‘‘ Whence comes sin, evil into 
the world?” the Apostle here decides very dis- 
tinctly in a negative form: im no event from God. 
Evil though connate, is not co-created. 

4. Nothing must be taught or announced that 
does not rest upon or does not agree with the 
testimony of Christ. Those who pretend to know 
eternal truth which maketh free, different from 
Him, do not know it better, and are not servants, 
but adversaries and rebels.—It is at once Apos- 
tolical and Protestant to go back to the beginning 
of the Gospel in Christ. We are much more the 
Apostolical Church than the Church of Rome 
with its claims to Apostolicity. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


God is Light. 1. Whence do you know it? 2. 
What does it mean? 3. Whither does it point? 
—Whatever right and true views you may have 
of God the Father, you haye them from Christ, 
no matter whether a messenger of salvation, a 
servant of the Church have announced them to 
you, whether they were told you by your mother 
or commended by the counsel of a friend, whether 
Christian hands brought them to you in the Bible, 
or the Holy Ghost excited them in your heart.— 
Nothing gladdens the hearts of men more than 
light; but how have they abused the Word and 
deprived it of its best part, and try to make it 
chime in with unholiness in thought, in word 
and in deed!—The world’s light dazzles without 
illumining, shines without producing a spring 
with blossoms or an autumn with fruit.—The 
world’s light may be useful, build you in this 
life bridges of honour, bring wreaths to artists 
and fame to the wise, make account of order in 
the land and in the streets, rejoice the heart in 
jhe social circle and refresh the mind, but also 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


undermine and destroy the salvation of your 
soul. But it cannot carry a shine of consolation 
into the night of life, still less into the night of 
death; it cannot help the soul to find love and 
the life which death cannot destroy.—The world’s 
light sets like the sun in the sky; but the Light 
which is God the Lord, shines through all the 
night of sin, of life, of death.—Try every light, 
whether God be in it.—If He, the Holy One, is 
absent, that light is no light worthy of the name, 
but a false light, a will-o’-the-wisp.—Do not look 
for salyation in any light of science or civiliza- 
tion, if it denies the holy light. Fear only the 
darkness in which God the Father is not found. 

Srarke:—Teachers should not pronounce any 
thing in things Divine but that which they have 
heard from the Lord in His Word; for if the 
Apostles themselves were firmly tied by it, how 
much more are they bound to cleaye to it? The 
thoughts of man, being fallible, are not sufficient 
for the foundation of the faith.—Because God is 
Light, and in Him is no darkness whatsoever, it 
is wholly impossible that He can be the Cause of 
sin, which is the greatest darkness.—God is all 
Light, Wisdom, Holiness, Consolation and Joy; 
who would not desire to be united with Him? 

Lance:—Because God is Light we have often 

to sigh in our fellowship with Him: “Lord, cause 
Thy face to shine upon us, and be gracious unto 
us.”’ 
SpenerR:—God is Light. 1. Holiness and 
Righteousness, showing that He not only has no 
evil within Himself, but also cannot suffer sin or 
evil in His creatures. 2. All wisdom and All- 
wisdom. 8. Glory and salvation. 

Hrvusner:—Christianity has showed to all men 
the light-nature of God in Christ in the clearest 
brightness; that He is through and through per- 
fect Knowledge, Omniscience, Wisdom, Love, 
Grace, Holiness and Happiness, and delights in 
the happiness of His creatures. Why does John 
specify this as the chief announcement? 1. Be- 
cause it is of the first importance and indispen- 
sably necessary for sinful man to know that it is 
not by the hostile and malicious purpose of an 
omnipotent Being that he has been cast into this 
misery, that God did not plan his ruin, and that 
it does not come from Him, because He is pure 
and good. 2. Because salvation, a restoration of 
happiness may be expected from this God who 
desires all men to be happy. This belief is man’s 
first support [holding-point] of salvation. And 
this His Will God has proved most strongly in’ 
fact—through Christ. 

Bresser:—John convicts of falsehood three 
classes of spirits by declaring the vanity of the 
boast of fellowship with God on the part of such 
as walk in darkness instead of walking in the 
Light, of such as comfort themselves with the 
assurance of being perfectly pure instead of re- 
lying upon the continual cleansing of the blood 
of Christ, and lastly, of such as, instead of con- 
fessing their sins, deny their sinfulness. World- 
ly-mindedness, boast of sanctity and self-righ- 
teousness are exposed by John to the condemna- 
tory light of the truth, and accompanied by an 
exhortation to a sincere, humble and penitent 
walking in the Light. 

[Br. Hatu:—Divine Light and reflections. 
mons, Works, δ, 419.—M]. 


Ser- 


CHAP) 11. Ὁ: 


81 


2. First Inference: 


The True Fellowship. 


Cuarter I. 6-7. 


6 Τῇ we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness,’ we lie, and do not 
7 the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he? is in the light, we eee fellowship one 
with another,’ and the blood of J eniae Christ his Son πε ρὲ us from all sin.* 7 


Verse 6. Π ἐ ἐν τῷ σκ ό veut, in the darkness; so German, Lillie, al., Dutch, Ital., French verss.—M.] 


Verse 7.[2 as a ὑτὸς ἐστιν, aS He Himself is, etc.; so Meyer, Lillie, Wordsworth, al. 


Winer: “ Among the Greeks, 


as is well known, αὐτός in the casus rectus does not stand for the mere unemphatic he, nor could any 
decisive examples of this be found in the N. T.”— 


ϑμετ᾽ ἀλλήλων. 


The best Codd., also Sinait., have this reading; μετ᾽ αὐτῶν is substituted chiefly by 


Latin Coad., but the less authentic reading, and clearly a correction designed to conform vy. 7 to v. 6. 


4 After Ἰησοῦ A. ἃ. K., al. read Xptarod, probably on account of τ. ὃ. 


Lachm., Tischend., Buttm.—M. ] 


jit is omitted by B. C., Sin., al., 


δκαθαρίσει or καθαριεῖ! eS sufficient authority. 


[ Sin. readsapaptias ἡμῶ 


M.] 
7 German of the last clause: oe and the blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin.’—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


The sequence is clear: the Apostle concludes 
from the Being of God the nature of their life 
who are and live in fellowship with God. He 
postulates that spiritual fellowship, necessitates 
an affinity among persons in fellowship with one 
another, and that this internal fellowship must 
manifest itself externally in their life, so that 
fellowship with God is impossible without a cor- 
responding godlike life as exhibited in the walk 
and conversation of men, 

Ver. 6. The negative part of the inference 
stands first, connecting with the last clause of the 
preceding verse (‘‘and darkness in Him is none 
whatsoever’’). 

If we say.—John is very fond of this phrase, 
vv. 7. 8. 9. 10; ii. 1; iv. 12; it is similar to ἐών 
Tic, Ch. 11... 155) iy.20) ει δὲ av, ch. ii. 17. 1y- 
15. As to the sense, the following phrases pre- 
sent parallels: πᾶς ὁ ἔχων, ch. 111. 8; πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν, 
ch. iil. 4; πᾶς ὁ μένων, ch. ili. 6; πᾶς ὁ ἀρνοὕμενος, 
ch. ii. 28; without πᾶς, ch. ii. 4. 6.9.10. The 
Apostle is thus wont to describe an objective pos- 
sibility (Winer, p. 3808), ἡ. e., he assumes that it 
may be so, and that the event would show whether 
it will be so. The Apostle renders this hypothe- 
sis general by the use of the communicative Plu- 
ral, and thus makes his speech more lively; if 
we,—not excluding myself and the Apostles, be- 
ginning with myself down to the most humble 
reader of this Epistle, or to any individual 
Church-member,—should say. Thus John com- 
bines in the communicative and hypothetical 
form generality of application and considerate 
delicacy (Liicke). Saying does not denote here 
the inaudible language of the heart, that is think- 
ing, but articulate utterance and assertion in- 
duced by the force of conviction. But it is not 
on that account nos gerere (Episcopius), as if the 
reference were to a testimony of our walk and 
practical conduct, although this saying and al- 
leging must be taken as equivalent to an act, a 
fact or an action. [Wordsworth suggests that 
ἐὰν εἴπωμεν contains a reference to the saying of 
the Gnostics, who alleged that by reason of the 
spiritual seed in them, and of their superior spir- 
itual knowledge, and communion with the light, 

22 


they were free to act as they chose, and were not 
polluted thereby, and were not guilty of sin 
(Irenzeus, I., 6, 20). Some of them even ven- 
tured to extol the workers of the most audacious 
acts of darkness, such as Cain, Korah and Judas, 
as persons gifted with superior freedom of 
thought and intrepidity of action, and to affirm 
that, since the soul could not attain unto perfec- 
tion except by knowledge, it was even requisite 
for men to make themselves familiar with all 
manner of evil, in order that by a universal 
empiricism of evil they might arrive the sooner 
at their ultimate consummation. See Irenzus, 
I., 25, 4, ed. Stieren; p. 103, ed. Grabe; II., 32, 
ed. Stieren; p. 187, ed. Grabe, and cf. Blunt on 
the Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Lectures, ch. 
IX., p. 179.—M. ] 

That we have fellowship with Him.— 
See the notes on v. 8. Here the Father only is 
mentioned, of whom it was said above that He is 
Light, in order to draw therefrom a conclusion 
bearing on the nature of the Christian life. 
[Fellowship with God is the centre and founda- 
tion of the Christian life.—M. ] 

And walk in the darkness.—And com- 
bined with say makes one sentence. — Walk, 
περιπατεῖν, ch. ii. 6; 2 Jno. 6, occurs also Rom. 
vi. 4; viii. 4; its synonymes are πολίτευμα, Phil. 
ili. 20, ἀναστροφὴ and ἀναστρέφειν, Eph. iv. 17, sq., 
ii. 2, sq.—Bengel: ‘‘actione mterna et externa, quo- 
quo nos vertimus.” Itembraces all our actions, 
not only those perceptible to men (Ebrard), but 
also that on which these depend, whereby they 
are caused, the inward actions of our life. 

In the darkness indicates the sphere and 
element in which that walking takes place, ef. 
Jno. viii. 12. Darkness, which is not at all in 
God, does not in any way belong to Him, is the 
undivine, the unholy, that which is separate from 
Him—sin, evil. It is therefore not: to have still 
adhering to one sin or evil, or failure and falling 
through haste or weakness in temptation, in the 
struggle; but as the walk does not denote gross 
and common sin only, so walking in the darkness 
does not imply the presence of satisfaction with 
sin, or the entire passing through the whole ter- 
ritory of sin inall directions; the reference must 
be to one particular phase of life; some want to 
be Christians and make good their profession in 


82 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


every thing except honour; others are not severe 
with themselves or unfaithful to God and His 
Word in matters of worldly possession or in some 
master-passions, although in other respects they 
are strict and faithful. Such men walk, never- 
theless, in the darkness, and the words ‘‘we lie”’ 
apply also to them. It isa contradiction and op- 
position, cf. 2 Cor. vi. 14, sqq. Not exactly in- 
tentional lying and conscious hypocrisy, but ac- 
tual contradiction between Christian principle 
and the Christian sphere of life, and the real ex- 
hibition of life, certainly not without personal 
guilt; it is our guilt and our sin, our own lie, we 
ourselves are liars. Whenever, under those cir- 
cumstances, we say that we have fellowship with 
Him, welie; we lie to ourselves, if we say it 
only within ourselves, in our heart, think or im- 
agine it, or we lie to others, if we say it to them 
in our words or our works. Such lying consists, 
therefore, in thoughts, words and deeds. 

And do not the truth.—This is not the 
same as ψεύδεσθαι, as if ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν were 
identical with ἀληθεύειν, Eph. iv. 15. It is nei- 
ther the same as agere recte (Socinus), nor sincere 
(Beza, Grotius, Carpzovius), nor veraciter (Cal- 
vin). The truth consists not only in words, but 
also in thoughts and deeds; its sphere embraces 
the whole life, the whole man. The truth, ac- 
cording to John’s view, must be done; saying 
with him implies acting; not to do the truth is 
here parallel with walking in the darkness, while 
to do the truth corresponds to walking in the 
Light. ‘‘It is one and the same truth, which is 
apprehended in faith and confessed with the 
mouth, whieh, as a holy, Divine power, recreates 
the life of the new man and manifests itself in 
internal and external deeds.” (Diisterdieck), ef. 
Jno iii. 19-21 [where ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν is op- 
posed to φαῦλα πράσσειν, and where special refer- 
ence is made to the épya.—M.]—Thus the Apos- 
tle raises his powerful protest against every form 
of show-, word- or lip-Christianity, but his re- 
ference is to Christians, and therefore he passes 
on to Ver. 7, to the positive part of the inference. 
Butif we walk in the Light.—dé marks an 
antithesis. Jn the Light is explained by the anti- 
thesis ἐν σκότει, and by the additional clause, as 
He is in the Light, with reference to v. 5. 
{But this, it seems, is not the only antithesis, for 
it is also antithetical to ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, ὅτε κοινωνίαν 
ἔχομεν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, v. 6, viz.: if we not only say 
that we have fellowship with God and not walk 
in the darkness, but if we really walk in the 
Light; so Huther, Ebrard.—M.].—Our walk in 
the light embraces, therefore, the holiness of our 
inner and outer life, a holiness which in its con- 
sequences operates a communion among the 
brethren, and fully corresponding to the Light- 
Being οἵ God, which is also Love, exhibits its es- 
sential strength in the formation and preservation 
of fellowship. As He is in the Light is only for- 
mally different from God is Light; the latter 
phrase denotes Light as the Being of God, the 
former designates the element in which He is and 
lives.—c¢ indicates the oneness of element [in 
which Christians walk and God lives and moves 
—M.] and ground in God and ourselves; His 
holiness must be traceable in us if we have fel- 
lowship with Him. He indeed ts in the Light, 
while we walk in the light, it matters not how 


en ES ES SS Se a a δν 


poor and defective our effortsmay be. The sense 
is very similar to 1 Pet. i. 14-16; 2 Pet. i. 4. 
[Cf. ἐστε and περιπατῶμεν. God is infinite—man 
finite. —M. ] 

We have fellowship one with another. 
—The reading er’ αὐτοῦ cannot be right; for to 
walk in the Light and to have fellowship with 
Him coincide. But we naturally expect an ad- 
vance in the argument. It is, therefore, not 
right to take μετ’ ἀλλήλων as ἡμῶν τε καὶ τοῦ φωτός 
(Theophrast., Oecumen.), especially because God 
and men, the Creator and His creatures, are not 
of sufficient equality to be comprised in μετ᾽ αλ- 
λήλων. Equally inadmissible is the construction 
of Beza (cum illo mutuam communionem), and that 
of de Wette, who renders our fellowship with God. 
It is the fellowship of Christians one with an- 
other, as v. 8, per’ ἡμῶν, cf. iii. 11; iv. 7. 11. 12. 
To have (see note on v. 8) and to keep this fellow- 
ship is not a light matter; it is the fruit of the 
walking in the Light, of the fellowship with God, 
of a holy life and of holy aspirations. For sin 
separates, impedes and constantly destroys that 
fellowship. [This passage shows that the fel- 
lowship of Christians, or the “communion of 
Saints,” as it is expressed in the Apostles’ Creed, 
rests on a truly Catholic basis, and that its re- 
striction to the narrow limits of a sect is at once 
un-evangelical, un-Apostolic and un-Christian. 
—M.] Hence the Apostle continues: 

And the blood of Jesus His Son cleans- 
eth us.—The copula καὶ establishes a parallel 
with the preceding words, and points conse- 
quently not to fellowship with God and the breth- 
ren to be established, but to a fellowship already 
existing, and so well established that the first, 
viz.: fellowship with God, has already yielded 
the fruit of the second, viz.: fellowship with the 
brethren. It is impossible to take and interpret 
kai—yap, as alleged by Oecumen., Bede, Calov, 
Semler, al. The question is not to supply proof 
of the fellowship with the brethren, but to state 
a consequence of walking in the Light. The only 
question is whether the cleansing through the 
blood of Christ takes place alongside or inside the 
fellowship of the brethren with one another. 
The work of redemption is a whole, and not me- 
chanical, but organic and moral, so that this 
cleansing takes place inside the fellowship of the 
Church, of the fellowship essential to and estab- 
lished for redemption. Exegetically important 
is, moreoyer, the meaning and the Present form of 
καθαρίζει. This word cannot be the same as 
ἀφιέναι τὰς ἀμαρτίας, because it recurs, v. 9, by 
the side of and after that phrase. The reference 
is, therefore, not to the remission of sins, to ex- 
emption from punishment or the pardon of guilt, 
but to the cancelling of sin and redemption from 
it. The Apostle does not advert here to justifi- 
cation, regeneration, conversion, the actus judici- 
alis or forensis concerning the sinner, but to sanc- 
tification. The Present may suggest the idea of 
daily repentance and forgiveness of sins, but the 
meaning of the verb forbids also this reference. 
But wherein that cleansing consists is defined by 
the cleansing subject: the blood of Jesus 
His Son. It is said αἷμα, consequently not: 
God’s new covenant with us established by the 
blood of Christ (Socinus), not: our faith in the 
sufferings of Christ (Grotius), not: Jesus Christ 


CHAP. I. 6, 7. 


33 


who shed His blood for us, not: the contempla- 
tion of the death of Jesus (Paulus), not: the 
reasonable belief of the moral end of the cruci- 
fixion of Jesus (Oertel); τὸ αἷμα Τησοῦ is the blood 
shed upon the cross, the bloody death of Jesus 
on the cross, as in ch. v. 6, sqq. [The blood 
which Jesus, so-called because of His incarnation, 
shed as a sacrifice at His Crucifixion, or the 
bloody sacrificial death of Jesus, so Huther, 
Diisterdieck, Ebrard.—M.]. This indicates the 
historical fact when the man Jesus died upon the 
cross at Golgotha, the sufferings of the Lord 
when He made experience of the sins of men, 
suffered for them, carried them also, assumed 
them (ἀμνὸς Tov ϑεοῦ ὁ αἴρων, ete., Jno. i. 29), and 
took them away as Reconciler, but takes them 
away also as our Saviour, having died for us, but 
now lives and works in us, ef. ch. iii. 5. [Words- 
worth: ‘No less a sacrifice than the death of the 
Son of God was required to propitiate the offend- 
ed justice of God for sin; and no less a price 
than His blood, to ransom us from the bondage 
of Satan, to which we were reduced by sin.” — 
M.]. The addition of τοῦ viov αὑτοῦ points to His 
relation to God the Father, consequently to His 
Divinity, where two things are to be considered, 
first, the exaltation and glory, secondly, the hu- 
miliation and servant-form of the Crucified One; 
the blood of the God-Man is the subject which 
cleanses. Now the death of Jesus is a sacrificial 
death, His blood sacrificial blood, shed for the 
atonement of committed guilt, for reconciling the 
offended majesty of God and the inimically dis- 
inclined sinner, a ransom for mankind doomed to 
death and condemnation. See ch. ii. 2; iii. 5; 
iv. 9; v. 6, sqq. He creates to believers justifi- 
cation before God, but the power that creates 
preserves also that which it creates. The re- 
deemed congregate at the cross of Jesus; sin is 
forgiven, the debt remitted, sin must now be can- 
celled and fresh guilt avoided; in believers peca- 
tum manet but non regnat. Thus in the Church 
congregated at the cross and preserved in unity, 
sanctification continues in operation, after having 
begun its operativeness in justification. It is 
not our walking in the Light, not our own efforts 
in sanctification, but the blood of Jesus which 
cleanses us. (See Doctrinal and Ethical, No. 8). 

[The whole doctrine of this verse is very fully 
and admirably set forth in Diisterdieck. The 
sum of what he says we give in the language of 
Alford: “St. John, in accord with the other 
Apostles, sets forth the Death and Blood of Christ 
in two different aspects: 

1. As the one sin-offering for the world, in 
which sense we are justified by the application 
of the blood of Christ by faith, His satisfaction 
being imputed to us. 

2. As a victory over sinitself, His blood being 
the purifying medium, whereby we gradually, 
being already justified, become pure and clean 
from all sin. And this application of Christ’s 
blood is made by the Spirit which dwelleth in us. 

The former of these asserts the imputed right- 
eousness of Christ put on us in justification: the 
latter, the inherent righteousness of Christ 
wrought in us gradually in sanctification. And 
it is of this latter that he is here treating.” —M. ] 

From all sin—whether sins of thought, word 
or deed, sins of rashness or sins of ignorance, 


sins of malice, sins of omission or sins of com- 
mission, sins in affectu or sins in defectu, sins of 
pleasure or sins of pain, sins committed at our 
work or during our recreation, sins against the 
first or the second table of the decalogue. Ben- 
gel: originale, actuale. 

[Wordsworth notices the completeness of this 
doctrinal statement, which declares that Jesus is 
the Christ, against the Cerinthians (but this rests 
on the doubtful reading χριστοῦ, see App. Crit., 
Υ. 7, 4), that He is the Son of God, against the 
Ebionites, that He shed His blood on the cross, 
against the Simonians and Docetz, that it cleans- 
eth from all sin, against those who deny pardon 
on earth to deadly sin after baptism, and that it 
cleanseth us if we walk in the Light, against the 
Antinomian Gnostics, who changed the grace of 
God into lasciviousness (Jude 4), and alleged that 
aman might walk in darkness and yet be clean 
from all guilt of sin.—M. ] 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. As He is in the Light, v. T—is not a Gnostic 
dogma simply required to be known and under- 
stood, but an ethical principle for the governance 
of our walk. Light, as it is the Being of God 
(v. 5), so it is also the element of God, and be- 
cause it is the Being of God, therefore it is also 
His element, wherein He dwells and lives. Light 
must become our element in order that it may 
also become our Being; we must live in Him that 
He may more fully live in us, for we are destined 
to become θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, 2 Pet. i. 4. To 
strive after resemblance of God (Liicke) is saying 
too little. Nor is Bengel altogether right in say- 
ing: ‘‘imitatio Det criteriwm communionis cum Ilo.” 
For if the Lord says (Matt. vy. 48): ‘Be ye 
therefore perfect, even as your Father which is 
in heaven is perfect” (cf. Lke. vi. 36), perfection 
or compassion is not set down as a foreign and dis- 
tant goal, or held up as an ideal, rule, but the 
experience and enjoyment of the perfect com- 
passion of God is to become an. impulse for re- 
ceiving and appropriating it, in order that we, 
in our turn, may exhibit it. 1 Pet. i. 15. 16 is 
similar. Even Paul says (Eph. v.1): γίνεσθαι 
οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ ϑεοῦ ὡς τέχνα ἀγαπητά. As 
children they are in their converse with the 
Father to inhale and receive what they experi- 
ence at His hands, in order that they may have 
within themselves a living fountain, causing in 
its turn the streaming forth of Divine life, and to 
do as the Father doeth. The reference is not to 
an artificial imitation, but to a filial following the 
Father in ardent attachment to Him. The child 
is not so much literally to imitate as to cleave to 
the Father, to receive Him, and as the Lord so 
often requires it, to follow Him. Such a life in 
converse with God, in the life-sphere of God, 
John emphatically demands as the chief require- 
ment of individual Christians, as well as of the 
whole Church. 

2. The Person of Jesus is again taken as uniting 
the Godhead and Manhood, when His blood is 
spoken of as αἷμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοὺ (of God). The 
word αἷμα testifies against Docetism, because it is 
operative as a real power, and against Ebionism 
the words ‘‘His Son,” whose the blood is: the 


ι. 


84 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Godhead, in brief, is a factor in the work of re- 
demption. This combined expression opposes as 
much Nestorianism, which separates the two na- 
tures, as Eutychianism, which confounds them, 
and testifies for the Lutheran doctrine with its 
communicatio idiomatum, and against the Reformed 
principle: jfinitum non capaz infiniti. Luther, in 
his Confession of Faith, A. D. 1528-29 (Guerike: 
Symbolik, p. 666), says: ‘*Again I believe and 
know that the Scripture teaches, that - - God the 
Son - - did assume a whole, full humanity, and 
was the true seed or child promised to Abraham 
and David, and was born as the natural son of 
Mary, every way and in every form a true man, 
as lam myself andall others; but that He came 
without sin, of the Virgin alone, by the Holy 
Ghost. And that this man is truly God, and be- 
came (other reading: was born) one inseparable 
Person of God and man, so that Mary the holy 
Virgin is a very and true mother not only of the 
man Christ, as the Nestorians do teach, but of 
the Son of God.” But if Luther in a Trinity 
Sermon (Erlangen edit., 9, p. 25), on the ground 
of Acts xx. 28, calls the blood of Christ straight- 
way the blood of God, itis to be borne in mind 
that in that passage κυρίου and not Veo is the best 
authenticated reading, and that such an oxymoron 
must not be pressed beyond seeing in it the doc- 
trine of the inseparable God-Man. Caloy’s fol- 
lowing Luther cannot be regarded as a precedent 
of great moment, since the Scripture, with its 
wisdom in the choice of terms, does not require 
us so to do.—Cf. Doctrinal and Ethical, on v. 8, 
No. 8. [Also the last note on v. 7, in Hxegetical 
and Critical.—M. ] 

[Article II. of the 39 Articles of the Church 
of England and the Prot. Episec. Church in the 
U.S. states thus briefly the doctrine of the Per- 
son of Christ: ‘‘The Son, which is the Word of 
the Father, begotten from everlasting of the 
Father, the very and eternal God, and of one 
substance with the Father, took man’s nature in 
the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her sub- 
stance: so that two whole and perfect natures, 
that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were 
joined together in one Person, never to be di- 
vided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very 
Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and 
buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be 
a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also 
for all actual sins of men.” And the Athanasian 
Creed, vv. 28-35, thus defines: 

28. "ει ergo Fides recta, ut credamur et confite- 
amur, quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei Fil- 
tus, Deus pariter et Homo est. 

29. Deus ex substantia Patris ante secula genitus: 
Homo, ex substantia Matris in secula natus. 

80. Perfectus Deus, perfectus Homo ex anima ra- 
tionali et humana carne subsistens. 

81. Aqualis Patri secundum Divinitatem : minor 
Patre secundum Humanitatem. 

82. Qui licet Deus sit et Homo, non duo tamen, 
sed unus est Christus. 

83. Onus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in 
carnem, sed assumptione Humanitatis in Deum. 

84. Unus omnino, non confusione Substantix, sed 
unitate Persone. 

85. Nam sicut anima rationalis ef caro unus est 
Homo; ita Deus et Homo unus est Christus.”’—M. ] 

8. The work of Jesus is strongly characterized 


in one direction: ‘His blood cleanseth from all 
sin.” This statement involves the following par- 
ticulars: 

1. We can nevermore cleanse ourselves, our 
cleansing remains the work of Christ. 

2. It is just the death of Christ that effects 
and accomplishes our cleansing; dying for sin, 
He conquers it; the victory of sin is its defeat, 
and the defeat of Christ is His victory: fighting 
unto death, He acquires the life of His own, and 
sin in its triumph over Him on the cross is dis- 
comfited. For His sake God turns to the world 
His reconciled countenance, and through faith 
in the Crucified One the world abandons sin, 
which is enmity against God. The cross, the 
death upon the cross, possesses an overwhelming 
power of attraction, and the life of the Son of 
God shut up in the life of the body breaks through 
in the life of the Spirit, in the working of the 
Spirit sent by Him and the Father, who now be- 
comes operative in believers (Jno. vii. 39; Col. 
xvi. 7; Acts ii. 33). 

3. Sin still cleaves to the justified; justifica- 
tion does not miraculously or magically cancel 
sin by a judicial decree, it only absolves us from 
punishment, guilt and condemnation, butrequires 
the carrying on of the work of redemption (of 
which it is the beginning), and of its consum- 
mation in sanctification; justification does not 
end, but it does begin redemption. 

4. Justification does not even effect the inde- 
pendence of the believer, but merely introduces 
him into the walk in Light, to the fellowship of 
the brethren one with another, as into the sphere 
within which redemption may be carried on and 
consummated, and also in the individual; re- 
demption, like the knowledge of infinite Love, is 
a common experience (Eph. iii. 18, sq., σὺν πᾶσιν 
τοῖς ἁγίοις). 

5. Sanctification is the continuation of justifi- 
cation, it must ever return to it and recur to its 
power and might. 

6. Sanctification is a work gradual in its 
growth. 

7. It has respect to all sin, not only to its man- 
ifestation, but to its seat and origin. 

8. Justification and sanctification, the power 
of the death upon the cross and the fellowship 
with the brethren, the walk in the Light and the 
cleansing from all sin, all these reciprocally op- 
erate on and promote each other; this holds 
more particularly good of brotherly, of Church- 
fellowship, and of the hallowing power of the 
Saviour’s death upon the cross, so that we are 
reminded of the words of Cicero: ‘‘ Nisi in bonis 
amicitia esse non potest.” Or, we must distinguish, 
but not separate Christ for us, before us, and in 
us. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Every thing depends on the reply you give to 
the question whether sin rules you or as yet only 
adheres to you. If sin reigns over you, you be- 
long as yet to the darkness, but if the reign of 
sin is broken in you, though there be still sin in 
you, you belong to the children of light.—It is 
not with pride, but with gratitude to God, that 
the Christian contemplates his being in the light. 


CHAP. 1. 0, 7. 


—Love of God and of the brethren is the power 
of sanctification, and this is the life of love.— 
It is just the sanctified who see even the smallest 
sins with painfulness and perceive that they 
stand in need of cleansing through Jesus Christ. 
—If thy sin troubles thee in its deep motions, 
know that in the cross thou hast a well, whence 
thou mayest and must draw consolation. It is 
not sufficient that thou art a Christian who is 
shone upon, thou must become an enlightened 
Christian. 

Srarke:—The ungodly are children of dark- 
ness without admitting it, they walk in the dark- 
ness without perceiving it, they commit the 
works of darkness without believing it. O, ter- 
rible blindness! Lord, open thou their eyes that 
they may see, tremble and return from their evil 
way.—How busy are people during the natural 
day! O, that they would not suffer the acceptable 
time and the day of salvation to pass by idly and 
without profit! Walk in the Light!—The virtue 
of the blood of Jesus Christ effects not only our 
first cleansing from dead works, but also our daily 
cleansing. 

Sprner:—We may say it and glory that we 
have fellowship with God; nor is it spiritual 
pride to acknowledge the grace of God which we 
have received, provided we do not ascribe it to 
ourselves.—Light is impatient of darkness, and 
God of sin. By this test thyself, whether thou 
art God’s. Moses shone beautifully through long 
converse with this light; why should not the soul 
wherein He dwelleth do likewise? Let thy light 
shine, and do not deceive thyself by false con- 
ceits. 

NEANDER:—To those who sincerely strive to 
walk in the Light, yet make daily experience of 
the still remaining influence of sin, and are dis- 
quieted in their conscience on hearing that fel- 
lowship with God, who is Light, can only be had 
by those who walk in the light,—to such is of- 
fered the comfortable assurance of entire cleans- 
ing from the sin as yet adhering to them. But 
the self-deception of those is also met, who trust 
to cleansing through the blood of Christ, without 
a corresponding course of life. The close con- 
nection between Christ im us and Christ for us is 
here indicated. 

HrvuBner:—Only among the pure is fellow- 
ship, ὃ. e., true concord, love, confluence of the 
hearts. Evil separates, and is the source of dis- 
cord.—The kingdom of God is the kingdom of 
love and peace; that of Satan the kingdom of 
discord. 

AHLFELD:—Which are the seals and evidences 
of true fellowship with God? 1. That we walk 

@in the light; 2. that we have fellowship one with 
another; 3. the humble confession that we owe 
the cleansing from our sins solely to the blood 
of Jesus Christ.—Providence moves pari passu 
from the first creative fiat to the last judgment.— 
Thou knowest that every transgression enshrouds 
thy heart in night.—True fellowship does not 
flow from our natural life, not from leagues for 
the commission of common sin, not from common 
pleasure or common profit, but only from the walk 
in Light.—First His passion, then thy passion; 
first His dying, then thy dying.—As long as Christ 
is our Righteousness, you also must go with Him into 


35 


the walk in Light. As long as He is truly your 
Surety and Sacrifice, you also must with Him pre- 
sent to God your heart and will as a sacrifice of 
sweet savour. But he that learns to sacrifice him- 
self, remains also in the fellowship with the brethren. 


BrssEr:—But how many, who, perchance, do 
not know the school-name of the modern Nicola- 
itanes, the Pantheists, yet do their works, while 
from the fear of a separateness from sin, griey- 
ous to the flesh, they change the frontier-line be- 
tween good and evil, put light for darkness and 
darkness for light, and then spread a figment of 
their own thoughts, which they call God, as a 
pillow for their worldly-mindedness.—Our fel- 
lowship with God, whom we do not see, is evi- 
denced by our fellowship with one another, where 
one sees the other.—There are also will-o’-the- 
wisp-fellowships, and the mere saying of any 
Church-fellowship that it has fellowship with God 
is not sufficient.—Anna, the electress of Branden- 
burg, ordained in her will: ‘‘Our text shall be 1 
Jno. i. 7: The blood of Jesus Christ His Son 
cleanseth us from all sin.” 


SrEINHOFER:—‘‘A soul washed in the blood of 
Jesus Christ has very delicate perceptions. The 
light which has risen in her shows her the small- 
est dust-particle of sin and the most subtle mo- 
tions of the flesh, and makes her perceive what- 
ever accords with her happy frame in gladsome 
converse with God and the Saviour, and whatever 
disturbs it.” 


[RreceR:—The Bible-verse of the blood of Je- 
sus Christ and its cleansing virtue is a verse for 
the children of God, for the children of the Light, 
and says to them: your love of the light, your 
hatred of darkness with its unfruitful works were 
insufficient to warrant your access to God, your 
joyous appeal to His Love; with these only your 
approach of the Light would have caused you to 
melt away as wax exposed to the heat of fire; 
but it is the blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God, 
that is, God’s sending His Son into the world to 
make atonement for your sins, whatever He did 
and suffered, especially His sacrificial blood- 
shedding in the voluntary surrender of Himself, 
and His present priestly appearance before the 
face of God with His blood and the treasure of 
all His merits contained therein, it is this which 
must be of avail to you. The design of this 
blood-shedding was the cleansing of your sins ; 
and thus we find it declared in the Gospel, for 
our use in penitence and faith; thus it was 
sprinkled over us in Holy Baptism; and thus the 
Holy Ghost applies it in our daily renovation, 
bestowing upon us the double benefit of the for- 
giveness of our sins and the cleansing from all 
unrighteousness. At every motion of sin in our 
conscience or in our members, we may, under 
the influence of the Spirit, apply to this blood 
and its cleansing virtue, and thus prevent the 
calling into question or the sundering of our fel- 
lowship with God, and that in the power of the 
power of the high-priesthood of Christ we may 
ever become and remain nearer to God.””—M. | 

[Br. Hatu:—As He is Light, so every aberra- 
tion from Him is darkness; if we then say that 
we have fellowship with this pure and holy God, 
and yet walk in the darkness of any sin whatso- 


36 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


ever, we belie ourselves, and do not according to 
that truth which we profess.—M. ] 
Sermons :— 


Cuarnock, StepHEN:—The yirtues of the 
blood of Christ. 
Earie:—The Popish doctrine of purgatory re- 


ΒΙΡΕΙΤΗ, M.:—The spiritual antidote to cure | pugnant to the Scripture account of remission 


our sinful souls. 


through the blood of Christ.—M. ] 


3. Second Inference.—Perception and Confession of Sins. 


Cuarpter I. 8-10. 


8 


If we say that we have no! sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 


9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just® to forgive us owr sins,‘ and to cleanse® 


10 us from all unrighteousness. 
and his word is not in us. 


Verse 8. [| German: “If we say that we have not sin,” but the rendering of E. V. is better and idiomatically more cor- 


If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, 


rect, for ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν isto havesin, and ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχειν denotes to have no sin, to 


be absolutely free from it.—M. | 


ἐν ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν A.C. K. al. [Lachm., Tischend., Wordsw.—M.] is a more authentic reading than 

οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν B.G.al. Sin. Vulg.; which is probably a correction according to y. 10. ~ 
Verse 9. [8 German: “ He is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins.” δίκαιος “ocurs other five times in this 

Epistle, and is always in E. V. so rendered. The opposition, moreover, between God as δέκαιος and 
the ἀδικία from which the Church is cleansed, is lost in Εἰ, V.”’ Lillie—The omission of owr, supplied 
in E. V., is idiomatic German, but hardly English.—M.] 

4 ἡμῶν, Cod. Sin., but otherwise feebly sustained, is probably added from the first clause of the verse. 

δκαθαρίσει A. al.{perhaps also in C**] cannot be received as the original reading. καθαρίσῃ has the 


the weightier authority of-Sin. B. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Connection.—The structure of these verses is 
unmistakably the same as that of those imme- 
diately preceding them: negative (v. 8) and po- 
sitive (v. 9), while the negation (yv. 8) is conti- 
nued (γ. 10) with reference to the positive (v. 9), 
and the parallel is even indicated in the form: ἐὰν 
εἴπωμεν. vy.8.10. The connection of y. 8 with the 
presuppositions at the end of vy. 7 (καθαρίσει ἀπὸ 
πάσης ἁμαρτίας) that sin is still inhering in us, is 
equally unmistakable. But it is just as unmis- 
takable that the perception and confession of sins 
are here emphatically dwelt upon as following 
and accompanying the true fellowship with its 
walk in the Light. The continuance of the Plural 
form (we, us, our) denotes also the general cha- 
racter both of what is said here and in the pre- 
ceding verses. After all, we have here a second 
inference drawn from the leading thought that 
‘God is Light,” (vy. 5). 

Ver. 8. Perception of Sin.—If we say, cf. v. 
6, above in Lzxegetical and Critical. 

That we have no sin.— Ayapria in the Sin- 
gular denotes sin in general; the absence of the 
Article points out that the reference is neither to 
a particular sin, nor to the whole, full sin [but 
to any sin.—M.]. Hence the application of the 
term to original sin as contrasted with actual 
sins (peccata actualia), as maintained by Augus- 
tine, Bede, Luther,*Calvin, Beza, Calov, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Neander, Sander and Diisterdieck, 
is as inadmissible as that which refers it to a 
particular sin or a particular kind of sins, as in 
ch, vy. 16; ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον, or μὴ πρὸς ϑάνατον, 
sins of infirmity, light offences, against which so 


early a writer as Augustine remarks: ‘Multa 
levia (‘peccata) faciunt unum grande.” Nor can 
ἁμαρτία designate the guilt of sin, as held by So- 
cinus, Episcopius, Loffler and Grotius, the latter 
saying: ‘‘Habere peccatum non est: nunc in peccato 
esse, sed: ob peccata reum posse fieri,”’ nor describe 
sins committed or inhering anterior to entrance 
into fellowship with God the Light, where the 
Greeks Oecumenius, Theophylact and the Scho- 
liasts have the precedence. “ἁμαρτία is simply 
sin, nothing more or less, but it is certainly sin. 
Nor does ἔχομεν make any change in the matter, 
so as to designate the state ‘‘in which sin has not 
yet wholly disappeared” (Liicke). But it is less 
the state which is the result of continued sinning, 
than the state from which results such sinning, 
i. e., the state which is not the product of former 
sin, but the producer of new sin. John says: 
We have sin, and that denotes, both that original 
sin gives us still trouble, and that we still do sin 
in thought, in word and in deed; if not as ser- 
vants, under the dominion of sin, who looking 
for reward are in the service of sin, yet by hasti- 
ness, infirmity or ignorance, now only suffering 
it by the force of habit or because of its conge- 
nital strength, or again by offering it too little 
resistance; sin insinuates itself into our good and 
our good works, even into prayer, partly in affectu 
(self-love, hardness in firmness, ete.), partly in 
defectu (gentleness even to parting with virtue, 
the love of our neighbour, as well as the love of 
self with fear, etc.). ἁμαρτία is a sinful de- 
meanour of any kind, falling away from true 
godliness, from that which is well-pleasing to 
God; here we may name particular inclinations, 
tendencies, principles, and especially the forms 
of the life of the imagination [Germeam: Ariung 


CHAP. 


I, 8-10. 37 


Se Lee. i ST ee TTR LST ka Tc Tk Le eS 


des Phantasielebens, an expression of Ebrard, who 
alludes to the impure representations of a de- 
praved imagination preceding the overt acts of 
vice and sin.—M.]. This we must not deny. 
The sentence with its substance and bearing be- 
comes clearer if we take it in connection with 
περιπατεῖν ἐν σκότει. The darkness is the territory 
of the undivine, well marked off in every direc- 
tion and containing the whole system of sin,—the 
sphere of the walk, the life and doings of men. 
A Christian cannot and may not be said to walk 
thus in the darkness, but he still has sin. There 
is still within him a territory which is constantly 
receiving some kind of admixture from the ter- 
ritory of darkness. He is no longer in sin, but 
sin is in him; the degrees, indeed, are infinitely 
different and adjusted to the degree of the 
cleansing and growth of the inner man. But 
even John is constrained to say: ‘‘ We have sin.”’ 

We deceive ourselves.—Here we have the 
Active, not the Middle Voice; ἑαυτὸν πλανᾶν. 
This form brings out the self-activity which sinks 
more into the backgrotind by the use of the Mid- 
dle with its Passive form. This brings out a 
difference like that in the German, ‘ich selbst 
drgere mich—ich tirgere mich selbst.” In the latter 
case the cause is excluded in others, while in the 
former it is definitely laid within myself, and thus 
gives prominence to my own guiltiness, whereas 
the second case describes only a suffering with- 
out any one else’s guilt. The pronoun of the 
third person edvrod in the Plural is used fre- 
quently both for the first (Rom. viii. 28) and the 
second person (John xii. 8). See Winer, p. 163, 
No. 5. The context removes all doubt that the 
reference is here to deception, to lying and error, 
as in 1 John iii. 7; Matt. xxiv. 4. 11, and else- 
where. This is also the proper meaning of this 
verb. It is parallel with ψευδόμεθα of v. 6, but 
gives greater prominence to self-guilt; there he 
lies before others in word or deed, here he lies to 
himself and this sin works into himself greater 
perdition. There an unregenerate man wants 
others to believe that he is a Christian, here a 
regenerate man deceives himself through pride. 
[Augustine: Si te confessus fueris peccatorem, est 
wm te veritas: nam ipsa veritas lux est. Nondum 
perfecte splenduit vita tua, quia insunt peccata: sed 
tamen jam illuminari ceepisti, guia inest confessio 
peccatorum.”—M. 

And the truth is not in us:—Since de- 
ceiving oneself runs parallel with the lying of y. 
6, so this sentence concludes parallel with not 
doing the truth, (vy. 6). The truth, ἡ ἀλήθεια is to 
be taken objectively (Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Hu- 
ther); the subjective lies in ἐν ἡμῖν (Bengel: non 
in corde, neque adeo in ore’’). It is the Divine 
truth in Christ; the absolute principle of life from 
God, received into our heart. Hence it is neither 
studium veri (as maintained by Grotius and Epis- 
copius), nor a truthful disposition (Liicke), nor 
the truthfulness of self-knowledge and self-exa- 
mination, of purity (de Wette), nor that which 
is true in general (S. G. Lange, Paulus), nor 
better moral perception, melior rerum moralium 
cognitio, as Semler interprets. Moreover, the 
being, the existence of the Divine truth as the 


principle of life in us is also denied (οὐκ ἔστιν). | v. 16. 


deed of the truth, the former without its exist- 
ence; here the truth being in us is denied, in y. 
6, only its manifestation and expression in our 
life. 

Ver. 9. Confession of Sins.—If we confess 
our sins.—The connection of this sentence with 
the preceding is not like that of y. 7 with v. 6, 
by δὲ, as Luther renders; the negatives of the 
preceding verse are strongly and abruptly anti- 
thetical to the positive of this verse; [Ebrard: 
“ΝΟΥ follows the second thought-member in a 
conditional sentence which introduces the oppo- 
site case. "Edy ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν. 
Here also John scorns a merely tautological repe- 
tition; he does not say: ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν ὅτι ἁμαρ- 
τίαν ἔχομεν, but where he opposes to the negative 
the positive, Confession, he does not speak of sin 
in general (as a state), but of definite, concrete, 
specific sins. For this is the form which the 
confession of sins must assume, in order to be 
inwardly true and efficacious. The mere con- 
fession in abstracto that we have sin, would be 
without truth and value and shrink into a hollow 
phrase, unless it be attended by the perception 
and acknowledgment of concrete particular sins. 
It is much easier to make pious speeches con- 
cerning repentance and the greatness of the 
misery engendered by sin, than in a specific case 
of sin to see one’s wrong, admit and repent it, 
and to be sorry forit. John requires the latter.” 
—M.].—The Apostle is not satisfied with εἴπωμεν 
as before, but uses ὁμολογῶμεν, which is much 
more comprehensive than the former, and of 
course involves it as well as the inward opining, 
thinking, saying and feeling convinced, which 
finally develops into audible utterance and de- 
claration before men; nor is this all, for it in- 
volves the additional particular of confessing 
one’s guilt before God, and this confession of 
guilt must be so lively and profound as to become 
public and ecclesiastically ordained, and stands 
in nothing behind the former εἰπεῖν. It is there- 
fore not enough to see here only a perception or 
recognition (Socinus: ‘‘Conjiteri significat interiorem 
ac profundam suorum peccatorum agnitionem.” 
Baumgarten-Crusius: “ὁμολογεῖν is to perceive, 
to be sensible, and to become conscious of, as 
contrasted with εἰπεῖν μὴ ἔχειν auapriav’’), or ‘an 
mward act grounded in the whole inward bias of 
the mind” (Neander), all which is taken for 
granted. Nor is it only the real utterance of sin 
inwardly identified and confessed to oneself (Hu- 
ther, Diisterdieck), for this also is implied as a 
consequence. Nor must we exclude the acknow- 
ledgment before God, and ‘the confession” or- 
dained for the comfort of a disquieted conscience, 
from which no truly penitent man will withdraw 
himself, and which is gladly sought and made by 
such as are of a contrite heart. [The reference 
here is to the Lutheran ‘ confession,” which 
must not be confounded with the R. C. auricular 
Confession. Luther himself distinguishes three 
kinds of confession: the first, before God (Ps. 
Xxxii. 6), which is ‘so essential that it ought to 
be the sum-total of a Christian man’s life; the 
second, towards our neighbour, and is the confes- 
sion of love as the former is that of faith (Jas. 
This confession, like the former, is ne- 


Hence this is even stronger than the former oi | cessary and ordained. The third is that ordered 
ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, Y. 6; the latter is without the | by the Pope to be made secretly into the ears of 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


mT 


a priest with an enumeration of sins. Luther 
condemned compulsory private confession, and 
left it optional with individuals to determine if, 
and what they should confess. Still he com- 
mends private confession, saying, ‘‘it is advisable 
and good.” The Augsburg Confession, 11., IV., 
says: “Confession has not been abolished in our 
Churches, and the usage is not to give the Lord’s 
Body to those who have not been previously 
examined and absolved,’ and Luther in his 
Larger Catechism supplies a form of confession 
which is very full of private matters (Catech. 
Minor., 1V., 16-29). The present practice varies 
in different Lutheran establishments, some re- 
taining private confession, others substituting 
general confession. The latter custom prevails, 
I believe, among Lutherans in the United States. 
—M.].—The proud εἰπεῖν stands in antithesis 
with the humble ὁμολογεῖν, which includes all the 
aforesaid particulars. The original ὁμολογεῖν 
signifies to speak together [hence to hold the same 
language.—M.], then to accord, assent to, and 
points to a dialogue between God accusing and 
reproaching us in our consciences by His Word 
and His Spirit, and man assenting thereto in 
humility, faith and prayer, even unto pouring 
out his heart before loved fellow-men, from his 
nearest friend to the spiritual guardian of his 
soul, the servant of the Word, the Minister of 
the gifts and Steward of the mysteries of God. 
Hence the object is designated by τὰς ἁμαρτίας. 
The sins are “the particular manifestations of 
ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν" (Huther), ‘definite, concrete, spe- 
cific sins” (Ebrard), of whichever kind they may 
be, lesser and even the least sins, even as repent- 
ance goes ever deeper and deeper and attains 
more clear and distinct perceptions of sin in its 
endless turns, in its hideousness and wrong. See 
below on vy. 10, and on ch. iii. 4. 

He is faithful and righteous.—That is 
only God the Father (so Liicke, de Wette and 
the majority of commentators), who is the ruling 
subject in the work of redemption, since for 
Christ’s sake, and through Christ the Mediator, 
He forgives and makes us happy, although Christ 
is referred toin y. 7, and belowin ch. ii. 1. The 
reference to the Father and the Son is inadmis- 
sible (J. Lange, Sander, 8. Schmid). The sub- 
ject is not defined, because the reference is to 
God the Father, who is the principal subject 
throughout [vv. 5-10]. God is faithful, He does 
not become so through forgiveness consequent 
upon our repentance. God is faithful because 
His Essence accords with His workings, and 
these in all particular manifestations accord with 
one another and all of them together. The pri- 
mary reference is to God’s faithfulness towards 
us, to the truth-and-light-essence which reigns 
in us, if we confess our sins, and is related to 
and in accordance with His Own Essence 
(Ebrard); but to this must be added a secondary 
reference to His Word with its promises of help, 
blessings, redemption and remission of sins (Diis- 
terdieck, Huther, al.), and this secondary refer- 
ence follows from the context v. 10, which re- 
adverts to the Word of God, although it had al- 
ready been mentioned in vy. 1. 3. 5, and is in 
perfect harmony with the grammatical usage of 
both Testaments and the views they express (cf. 
Ps. xxxii. 8 sqq.; Ezek. xviii. 81 sq.; 1 Cor. i. 


9; x. 18; 2 Cor. i. 18-21; 1 Thess. v. 24; Heb. x. 
23; xi. 11). And more than this, the term πεσ- 
τός, held thus absolute and undefined, has surely 
a wider bearing. It concerns something which 
He has produced as Creator and suggested as 
Regent in dispensations, to which the Father 
and the Lord have given consciousness in the 
Word, and which is in perfect harmony with the 
Light-nature of God. He is faithful to His 
Own Being, to His doings for, and in man as 
Creator, Preserver, Governor, Redeemer and 
Revealer. He is ‘stiff and firm” (Luther) in 
cleaving to His holy purpose of grace, that is, 
His faithfulness; πιστός therefore is not only 
misericors (8S. Schmid). Besides this we have the 
epithet δίκαιος, RIGHTEOUS, JUST, which applies 
to one who acts in accordance with the duties 
arising from his position; it denotes the disposi- 
tion and righteousness which gives to every man 
his due. God is righteous or just when He 
punishes those who walk ἐν σκότει, 2 Thess. i. 5. 
7, where the reference is to δικαία κρίσις, then He 
κατακρίνει but blesses those who walk ἐν φωτί, for- 
giving, cleansing and ultimately glorifying them, 
It is only the juxtaposition of πιστός and the con- 
text which render the limitation of δίκαιος to the 
judicial character of God with reference to: the 
penitent admissible in this passage. Faithful 
towards the penitent, agreeably to His Love, His 
eternal purpose of grace, His Word of promise 
and His work of redemption, He is also righteous, 
just, to them as promising them forgiveness and 
cancelling what is still unrighteous in them in 
conformity to His appointed laws. Hence δίκαιος 
is not—Lonus, lenis (Grotius, Schéttgen, Rosen- 
miiller), nor=«quus, benignus (Semler, G. 8. 
Lange, Carpzov, Bretschneider), nor again—7i0- 
τός (Hornejus, ‘‘in promissis servandis integer”), 
πογ--εδικαιῶν (Ebrard). Nor does the righteous- 
ness of God appear here as justitia vindicativa, 
which was revealed in the death of Christ, so 
that the forgiveness of sins is Christo jyusta non 
nobis (Calov), or in that the sinner, appealing to 
the ransom paid in the blood of Christ, has his 
sin cancelled, because it would be unjust to in- 
sist upon a twofold payment (Sander). Luther’s 
explanation is excellent; he says, ‘‘God is right- 
eous who gives to every man his due and accords 
to those who confess their sins and believe, the 
righteousness acquired through the death of 
Christ, and thus makes thee righteous.” This 
righteousness of God is closely connected with 
His faithfulness. But we must guard against 
the distinction that πιστός relates to PECCATA 
MORTALIA, δίκαιος to PECCATA VENALIA, ‘quid 86. 
justi per opera peenitentiw, caritatis etc. merentur de 
condigno hane condonationem” (Suarez). Faithful- 
ness is rather the soil and foundation from which 
righteousness springs up. [The blessings con- 
ferred upon Christians conformably to the d:caso- 
ctvn of God, are in fulfilment of the Divine pro- 
mises.—M.]. In Holy Scripture goodness and 
righteousness, truth and righteousness are syzy- 
gies (Nitzsch, System, 6th ed., p. 176). Cf. Ps. 
exliii. 1, and notes on ch, ii, 29. 

To forgive us our sins.—Iva is not=<ore, 
so that, or ὅτε with which it alternates, v. 5, ch. 
iii. 11. The difference is, whether we have here 
simply the contents of the message (v. 5), or its 
purpose (ch. iii. 11), The meaning here seems 


CHAP. I. 8-10. 


39 


to be: ‘He is faithful and righteous for ihe pur- 
pose of forgiving. It is His Law and Will to 
forgive (de Wette), but of course the Will mani- 
fests its energy in action (contrary to Huther). 
[I should prefer putting this with Winer thus: 
“He is faithful and righteous in order to forgive 
us,” i. e., the Divine attributes of faithfulness and 
righteousness are exercised in order to our par- 
don, as Wordsworth puts it.—M.]. The sins 
which have been confessed He remits. Pardon, 
forgiveness of sins, ὁ. e., the cancelling of the 
debt of sin and its culpability as well as of the 
consciousness of guilt or of an evil conscience; 
justification and reconciliation are therefore the 
jirst consequence of the confession of sin; the 
second consequence is: 

And cleanse us from all unrighteous- 
ness.—Neither an epexegetical addition (Sem- 
ler) nor an allegorical repetition of the preceding 
(Lange). It is a codrdinated clause describing 
sanctification as the continuation of justification, 
or redemption as the consequent of reconciliation. 
On καθαρίζειν see notes on y. 7. Unrighteous- 
ness, ἀδικία, is synonymous with ἁμαρτία, and 
consequently not—pena peceati (Socinus); the 
latter denotes the formal, the former the material 
side of sin; the latter indicates the genesis of sin 
(or its course of development) which does not 
coincide with the law, the former the fact of the 
effect of sin as violating, transgressing and of- 
fending against the Law, and onthat account liable 
to punishment and conducing toruin and perdition. 

Ver. 10. Conclusion.—If we say.—Cf. v. 8, 
of which this verse is not ‘merely the repetition, 
but the intensification and continuation. 

That we have not sinned goes back to 
ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν, but οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν is a much 
stronger expression; the former denotes a state 
or condition of which the latter is the actual ex- 
pression [v. 10 describes the concrete act, v. 8 
the abstract state—M.]; we have here the con- 
duct (v. 10) in a certain relation (v. 8) in con- 
nection with ἀδικία, v.9. The use of the Perfect 
does not warrant an exclusive reference to sins 
anterior to entrance into the Church (Socinus, 
Paulus), but denotes active sinfulness reaching 
down to the present and sins just committed; rac 
ἁμαρτίας, v. 9, show that the separate acts, the 
actuosity [actuositas—M.] of the ἁμαρτία (v. 8) 
are here dwelt upon. [Huther: ‘The Perfect 
does not prove that ἡμαρτήκαμεν denotes sinning 
prior to conversion (Soc., Russmeyer, Paulus, 
etc.); the reference here, as well as in all the 
preceding verses, is rather to the sinning of 
Christians; for no Christian would think of de- 
nying his former sins. The Perfect is in part ac- 
counted for by John’s usus loguendi, according to 
which an activity reaching down to the present 
is often expressed by the Perfect tense, and in 
part by the fact that confession always has re- 
spect to sins committed before.—M. ] 

We make Him a liar.—This clause answers 
to ψευδόμεθα and ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν, but is a much 
stronger expression; we not only lie for our- 
selves, we not only deceive ourselves, but we 
make God (αὐτὸν) a liar, and this takes place not 
without pride, stubbornness or bitterness even 
unto blasphemy (cf. Jno. v. 18; viii. 53; x. 33; 
xix. 7.12). He who is πιστός is blasphemed as 
ψεύστης, of course only by such men. 


And His word is not in us, i. ¢., His word 
of promise containing the ἀλήθεια, vy. 8; not only 
the truth and its knowledge are wanting to such 
persons, but they are also without the Word, the 
frame and vessel of the truth. As the reference 
is to Christians, His word probably designates 
the Gospel of, or concerning Jesus (Socinus, Ca- 
lov, Neander, Luther, Huther, Diisterdieck), and 
not the Old Testament in particular (Oecumen- 
ius, Grotius, de Wette, al.), or only the New Tes- 
tament (Lachmann, Rosenmiiller), nor in general 
the revelation of God absolutely, His entire self- 
disclosure, including the λόγος, Jno. i. 1 (Ebrard). 
—It is not stamped into the heart in living char- 
acters (Spener), it has remained or become again 
“outwardly or inwardly strange to us” (Huther) ; 
for the regenerate may fall from grace. A man 
that is not conscious of sin still adhering to him, 
not conscious, therefore, of the true nature of 
the holiness for which he was born and born 
again, cannot be or have been wont to contem- 
plate and examine himself in the mirror of the 
Divine Law, in the Light of the Divine Word, by 
the pattern held up to us in the revelation of 
Jesus Christ. Such a one does actually, care- 
lessly or maliciously accuse of falsehood the Word 
of God and the God of the Word, who looks upon 
us sinners and calls us to the consciousness of 
sin. Such men may remember the Word of God, 
know it by heart, but it is not to them an ani- 
mating life-principle and impelling power; it is 
not extant in their inward life and consciousness, 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The want of redemption which is universal is 
also permanent, which even in the Church of the 
redeemed has not disappeared (v. 8), although it is 
disappearing more and more (y. 9). The certainty 
of the difference between walking in the dark- 
ness (περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ σκότει) and walking in the 
light (περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ φωτί) is not greater than 
the certainty that those who are walking in the 
light have sin adhering to them (ἁμαρτίαν ἔχομεν). 
Vast as is the difference between these two modes 
and spheres of life, yet the import of the differ- 
ence among Christians still affected with sin, but 
experiencing a daily growing redemption from 
sin, vanishes before the purity of God the Father, 
no matter how marked and important the differ- 
ence may be between a John and individual 
Church members. The perception and cognition 
of sin, especially of one’s own sin, and the clear 
consciousness of it in all humility, are indispen- 
sable requisites for the walk in the Light. 
Though your sin, as compared with that of the 
unregenerate, be light, take care lest you esteem 
it light, The smallest stain soils a clean gar- 
ment. If you despise it when you weigh it, be 
afraid when you count it up. Many little sins 
make one great sin; many drops make a river. 


2. Self-deception is so fearful because it will 
progress to the denial of the truth and the truth- 
fulness of God and His Word, even to open and 
formal blasphemy (we lie, v. 6; we deceive our- 
selves, v. 8; we make God aliar, v.10). Chris- 
tians are saints, but only in process of being, and 
not already complete and perfect. [German:— 
becoming, not yet become.—M.]. This contradicts 
the Donatist error. 


40 


8. Justification is before sanctification, its ante- 
cedent; τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφιέναι precedes the καθα- 
ρίζειν ἀπο πάσης ἀδικίας (v. 9); this is the fixed 
order in the kingdom of God.—Both are acts of 
God; the first an act occurring once only, the 


second involving the continuous doing: of God. 


[the first is a solitary act, the latter a continuing 
process—M.]. Although the former is only a 
solitary, momentary act, and not a process like 
the latter, the former repeats itself whenever 
there occurs an interruption in the walk in light, 
or a loosening or sundering of the fellowship 
with God (v. 9). 

4. The forgiveness of sins, as the principal part 
of justification, consists of different elements: 1. 
cancelling or diminishing of the punishments of 
sin; 2. cancelling of the debt of sin and the cul- 
pability connected therewith (culpzx et debiti); 3. 
removal of the consciousness of guilt or of an 
evil conscience; 4. the inclination of Divine 
grace to the sinner as actually evidenced in the 
communication of positive, and especially of 
spiritual and eternal riches; 5. abrogation of the 
strength and power of sin, wherewith the blot- 
ting out of sin did begin, redemption, loosening 
from the power of evil, the purification of the 
reconciled sinner from sin. While the two last 
elements (Nos. 4. 5) mark the transition from the 
realm of justification to that of sanctification 
(xaHapifev, v. 7) that named first and relating to 
the punishment of sins is so externally related 
to the subject needing the forgiveness of sins, 
that its centre may be sought and found only in 
the other two, viz., the cancelling of the guilt 
and the removal of the consciousness of guilt, in 
perfect analogy with the confession of a justi- 
fied man, as supplied by St. Paul in Rom. v. 1-5, 
a passage which may be called classical in this 
matter: εἰρήνην ἔχομεν. The centre of the for- 
giveness of sins is the non-imputatio peccati. 
Temporal ills appointed as punishments of sin 
cease to be punishments to one who has re- 
ceived the forgiveness of sins, they are to him 
only δοκιμασία or παιδεία ; they are not always 
or altogether cancelled and removed, and are not 
the worst, particularly as they do not terminate 
in damnation, ἀπώλεια, whereas guilt and an 
evil conscience disquiet and cause pain. The 
forgiveness of sins simply changes the sinner’s 
relation to and before God, but afterwards there 
springs up a different conduct of God towards the 
sinner and of the sinner towards God in sanctifica- 
tion, wherein sins are forgiven and forgotten, 
the sinner is no longer regarded by God as a 
sinner, but as another man, and God appears to, 
and is felt by the sinner no longer as Judge, but 
as a merciful Father. But such a relationship 
springing from the forgiveness of sins may in- 
deed be disturbed and impaired and needs there- 
fore repeated renewing and quickening. 

5. The factor of the forgiveness of sins is God the 
Faithful and Righteous with His purpose of grace 
and its revelation (vy. 9). No man can forgive 
his sins to himself; self-redemption is a lie. 
Very beautifully says Luther in execrable Latin: 
‘* Amor Dei non invenit, sed creat suum diligibile ; 
amor hominis fit a suo diligibili.”’ 

6. The condition of the forgiveness of sins is the 
confession of sins (ὁμολογεῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας) resting 
upon and conditioned by perception of sins and 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


self-knowledge. After the death of Christ with its 
sufferings as well as with the proof of His per- 
fect obedience (v. 7) has operated on the sin- 
ner’s conscience and caused him by that light 
to perceive his own sinfulness, and to feel at the 
same time the mercy of God, as having special 
regard to, and influence upon him, he ceases in 
the love of faith in Christ to love himself and 
sin within himself, is afraid of himself in his 
ugliness, afraid of sin and its perdition reaching 
to the bottom of his heart and to eternal damna- 
tion, afraid of the wrath of God in the holy en- 
ergy of holy love, and confesses his sin, which 
he has discovered, before himself, before God 
and before men. Thus penitent he not only con- 
fesses his sins, but he is also another man, he 
is regarded as such by God, who now remits to 
him the debt of sin. This is the initial phase of 
sanctification, which begins with the forgiveness. 
The reconciliation of sinners is effected through 
the reconciliation in the bloody sacrificial death 
of Jesus, so that as the sons of God by grace, 
through the Son of God by nature, they make ex- 
perience of the further communication of His 
grace, and in virtue thereof grow up into heirs 
of His glory. This was very correctly perceived 
by Luther: ‘‘Here John meets the objection: 
‘What must I do then? my conscience reproaches 
me with my many sins, and John says, Confess 
thy sins. Thereby he confounds all such objec- 
tions as if conscience says: What must I do to 
be saved? How shall I set about to grow bet- 
ter? Nothing else, says he, but this: Confess 
thy sins to Him, and pray Him to pardon thy 
grievous guilt.’” ‘*This must be the form of 
confession,” says Ebrard, ‘‘in order to be in- 
wardly true and efficacious.”” The mere con- 
fessing in abstracto that we have sin, ete. ae 
above in Hzegetical and Critical on v. 9.—M.] 
The child after the deed and with his deed, 
which is evil, is a very different child, if he goes 
and sorrowfully and truthfully confesses his sins 
to his father. [41 will arise and go to my 
Father and will say unto Him, Father, I have 
sinned against heaven and before thee, and am 
no more worthy to be called Thy son,” ete. Luke 
xy. 18, 19, compared with vy, 21-24.—M.] It 
is wholly unwarranted that the Concil. Trident. 
XIV. c. 5, p. 37, cites this passage along with 
Luke y. 14; xvii. 14; Jas. v. 14, in proof of au- 
ricular confession, that auricularis carnificina and 
alleges ‘‘ Dominus noster Jesus Christus, e terris 
ascensurus ad clos, sacerdotes sui ipsius vicarios re- 
liquit tamquam praesides et judices, ad quos omnia 
mortalia crimina deferantur.”” Likewise ἃ Lapide 
says: ‘* Quam confessionem exigit Johannes? Hz- 
retici solam, que fit deo, admittunt ; catholici etiam 
specialem requirunt. Respondeo, Johannem utram- 
que exigere. Generalem pro peccatis levibus, speci- 
alem pro gravibus.” Equally unwarranted is the 
inference drawn in favour of purgatory from 
καθαρίσῃ as if the forgiveness (αφιέναι τὰς ἁμαρτίας) 
took place here and the cleansing from all un- 
righteousness (καθαρίζειν ἀπὸ τῆς πάσης ἀδικίας) 
not until hereafter in another state of existence ; 
even the reading xafapicec would not warrant 
such a construction. It is Paul’s particular aim 
to guard his readers against all such false satis- 
factions and hopes as those in which auricular 
confession and purgatory entangle men, and pas- 


΄ 


CHAP I. 8-10 


4i 


————————SFSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsSSSSSsSsS——— 


tors and friends also should bear this in mind 
in private confessions. [See above note on y. 
9.—M. ] 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The truth that we are altogether sinners is 
very bitter, universal in its application and 
reaches deep. But those who flatter themselves, 
and think higher and better of themselves than 
they really are, lose the truth. If you think 
any thing of yourself, you ruin yourself. God 
oily knows and is able to make something of 
man. Without the perception of sin no confes- 
sion of sin, without confession of sin no for- 
giveness of sin, without forgiveness of sin no 
cancelling of sin, ergo without grace no salva- 
vation. The denial of our sin and sinfulness 
will hardly avail with a human judge, but it 
will ruin us with the Judge Eternal. Without 
truthfulness and the love of truth you will have 
no room for God and His word in your heart and 
lose all susceptibility for them. Be afraid of 
desiring to know any thing, and especially thy 
heart, better than God, the Lord. 

Starke :—We must not look for perfect holi- 
ness in this world; those who entertain the 
fancy that they may be or are perfect are like 
those who walk on stilts or over precipitous 
cliffs: before they are aware of it they will fall 
and come to naught. Whoso seeks righteousness 
in absolute deliverance from sin, will lose it if he 
has it already, and never get it if he has it not. 
Confession of sins before God is necessary to the 
forgiveness of sins ; but we cannot merit forgive- 
ness by confession of sins. The confession of 
sins is here simply adduced as a sign of hearty, 
contrite repentance ; it comprises all these parts 
and is founded on a thorough knowledge accom- 
panied by a perfect hatred and detestation of 
sin; but it must take place without all cloaking 
and concealment, sincerely and from the heart. 
Moreover it must take place with the heart and 
with the mouth, first and foremost before God 
whom we have offended therewith and who, we 
hope, may forgive it us; but also before men, 
whom we have either offended or vexed thereby. 
Itis a congenital fault of men to love making them- 
selves innocent by their own efforts [literally 
‘to burn themselves white”’—M.]; but let none 
act the hypocrite to himself; for God has con- 
cluded all under sin, and no man living is righ- 
teous before him. 

SpEeNER :—Those also who walk in the light, 
stand in fellowship with God and are cleansed by 
the blood of Christ, have sins adhering to and 
remaining in them, from which they still require 
to be cleansed. If God has forgiven your sins, 
He will also cleanse you from all unrighteous- 
ness: now if you desire the one benefit without 
striving for or refusing to receive the other, you 
seek to overturn the righteousness of God and 
therefore cannot get it; for God has ordered 
that they must remain together. If the word of 
God is to be profitable to us, it must be kept and 
planted within us in order that it may be pow- 
erful and efficacious in us. 

[Collect for second Sunday in Advent : ‘« Blessed 
God, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be 


—— SS SS Se ee es πΡ, 
Se EE a Se ES Se eS SSS EE HE Se ee ee νυ Ὁ 


written for our learning: grant that we may in 
such wise hear them, read, mark, learn and in- 
wardly digest them, that, by patience and comfort 
of thy holy Word, we may embrace and ever 
hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, 
which Thou hast given us in our Lord Jesus 
Christ. Amen.”—M.] 

J. Lance :—If God daily forgives penitents 
their sins, how much more ought we to forgive 
one another’s sins; if we have been offended by 
men and we do not willingly and truly forgive 
them, neither will God forgive us. 

If one thinks himself perfectly holy and pure, 
he comes short of, 

1. Daily renovation ; 

2. The sense of godly poverty of spirit ; 

3. The daily prayer for the forgiveness of the 
sins and transgressions he has committed ; 

4. Spiritual watchfulness and carefulness ; 

5. Avoiding what may excite his inward de- 
sires and appetites ; 

6. The right use of the means of grace which 
are appointed for the furtherance of virtue; 

7. The proper regard and daily appropria- 
tion of the blood of Christ for cleansing from all 
unrighteousness ; 

8. Bounden sympathy with, and compassion 
on his faulty and erring brethren. Thus he will 
at last fall from the grace of God into abomina- 
ble selfishness and spiritual pride; and, unless 
he turn from the error of his ways, into eternal 
perdition. 

Wuiston :—Although we should like David and 
Peter fall from fellowship with God, He will, if 
we humbly and penitently confess those repeated 
sins and beg for mercy for Christ’s sake, forgive 
them also and cleanse us from all unrighteous- 
ness. We must not however boldly go on sin- 
ning, but rather shun sin the more. 

HEvUBNER :—The beginning of all wisdom is to 
know one’s sin. There is a difference between 
having and doing sin. The first is partly former 
guilt, partly the remaining bias to sin which 
misleads us to the commission of many sins of 
infirmity ; the second is living in some master 
sin, to be wholly the servant of sin. The matter 
stands thus: God says on every page of His 
Book: All men, consequently you and I also, 
are sinners; but man says, Iam not a sinner. 
One or the other therefore must lie. If man de- 
nies his sin, he affirms that God has lied in His 
Word ; yea, the whole Christian religion, Christ’s 
coming into the world would become a lie; for 
He came for the salvation of sinners—and there 
would be no sinners! Hence pride, self-right- 
eousness is so dangerous, hateful and loathsome 
to God, because the proud accuse God of lying. 

Nirzscu:—I. The warning against the false me- 
thod of getting acquitted of the burden of our guilt 
before God. The Apostle warns, 

1. Against the false interpretation and deprecia- 
tion of the law; the precepts, which I have not 
violated, cannot preserve my righteousness and 
innocence in the one which I have broken; nor 
is ignorance of any avail to me, how often I have 
unconsciously or half-consciously transgressed ; 
more malice may lie concealed in a word than in 
a deed, and more still ina thought. Knowledge 
of sin is the only gain we can derive from the law. 

2. Against excuses of sin from external or in- 


42 - 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


--- ττ-------.- - «----ς-ς-ς--ς-- - - ----.-.--ρ-’-ς----΄- .-ς-ςς ss nnn rs, 


ternal circumstances (‘he world, fate, human na- 
ture); we lose more by taking from God what is 
His, than if we give up all self-praise. Why did 
you not threaten or entice with God when men 
threatened or enticed you with the world, and 
seek to lead those to virtue who wanted to mis- 
lead you to vice? and have you always done the 
good you knew and were able todo? That igno- 
rant sinner remains to be found who has not 
knowingly transgressed the Divine precepts. 

3. Of false satisfactions; for they contain one 
and all an untrue and unhappy release from the 
state of guilt. 

Il. The true way of getting acquitted of our guilt 
before God: 

1. Ask what the confession of our sins is; and, 

2. Consider how on the right confession of sin God 
the True and Righteous will forgive us our sins and 
cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 

The man who confesses his sins in Ps. xxxii., 
does not make a show of his wickedness, nor re- 
gard his transgressions with the fear or careless- 
ness of the natural man, nor say yea to the ge- 
neral situation and complaint, and yet feel his 
guilt as he feels the regular pulsation of his 
heart, satisfied with his condition. No, his whole 
being, thinking, moving and life fully participate 
in his confession, which insists upon the full act 
and truth of our separation from sin and the ac- 
complishing of all that to which grace in Christ 
will lead us. It is full knowledge of sin and of 
our sin in us; we feel truly the guilt and misery 
of sin and that sin imperils our life, we confess 
in despair unto salvation, yet not without faith, 
but in faith in holy Love. This is the way with 
the beginning and progress of being cleansed 
from all unrighteousness. 

T. A. WoLtr:—Of the true constitution of those 
who live without the knowledge of sin. 

1. 7.5 marks: rude security, tender selfishness, 
self-contented pride. 

2. Its consequences: without the light of the 
truth, without the consolation of forgiveness, 
without strength for real amendment. 

8. Its end: either dying without the knowledge of 
sin, partly with fearful presumptuousness, partly 
with a firm courage that might make us doubt 
our belief, or attaining to a penitent and sincere 
knowledge of our sin. 

KRUMMACHER:—The throne of grace—1. Is con- 
cealed from ignorant or bad self-righteous men; 2. 
Unveiled—to believers; 3. Left too soon by levity, 
idleness, or culpable opinionativeness. 

Frrepricu:—Lither God is a liar, or we are 
altogether sinners. 1. A call to decision as to 
whether we will believe God’s Word in general 
or not. 2. A call from sleep whether we will con- 
tinue to yield ourselves to the dream of self- 
deception or not. 3. A call of the judgment, 
whether we will seek the grace of the forgiveness 
of our sins, or be lost forever. 

Crauss:—The Confession: 1. What it is? 2. 
What are its effects? 

Besser:—God grant that the truth be written 
not only in our confessions, but in our hearts !— 
No sanctification unless its root be forgiveness; 
and no forgiveness unless its fruit be sanctifica- 
tion. 

[Srannore:—On vy. 9, “That the true purport 


of this condition be not mistaken, it is fit we re- 
member that nothing is more usual in Scripture 
than to express a man’s duty by some very con- 
siderable branch of it. Thus the whole of reli- 
gion is often implied in the love or the fear of 
God; and thus confession here, no doubt, denotes 
not only an acknowledgment of our faults, but 
all that deep humility and shame, all that afflict- 
ing sorrow and self-condemnation, all that reso- 
lution against them, all that effectual forsaking 
them for the future, all that diligence to grow 
and abound in the contrary virtues and graces, 
all that entire dependence on the merits and sa- 
crifice of our crucified Redeemer, all that appli- 
cation of His Word and sacraments ordained to 
convey this cleansing blood to us, which accom- 
pany such acknowledgments, when serious and to 
the purpose, and which are elsewhere represented 
as constituent parts of repentance and necessary 
predispositions to forgiveness. In the mean while, 
as the mention of this singly was sufficient, so 
was no part of repentance as proper to be men- 
tioned as this; for it was directed to persons vain 
and absurd enough to suppose themselves void 
of sin, and thereby evacuating, so far as in them 
lie, the whole Gospel of Christ; for the Gospel 
propounds a salvation to all men, to be obtained 
only by His death,—a death undergone on pur- 
pose that it might propitiate for sin, and conse- 
quently a death needless to them who had no sin; 
a death of none effect to any who do not allow 
the necessity and trust to the virtue of it, for the 
remission of their own sins; but to all who do, 
so beneficial that God can as soon renounce His 
Word, as disappoint their reasonable expecta- 
tions. His promise is passed, and He is faithful; 
the Judge of all the earth cannot but do right; 
His Son has paid the debt, and He is just; He 
will not therefore require from the principal 
what the Surety has already discharged. So 
sure are we to be happy, if we be but sensible 
how miserable we have made ourselves; so sure 
to be miserable, if puffed up with vain confidence 
in our own real impotence, and insensible that to 
Jesus Christ alone we owe the very possibility 
of our being happy.”’] 

[Barrow :—‘ When from ignorance or mistake, 
from inadvertency, negligence or rashness, from 
weakness, from wantonness, from presumption 
we have transgressed our duty and incurred sin- 
ful guilt ; then, for avoiding the consequent danger 
and vengeance, for unloading our consciences of 
the burden and discomfort thereof, with humble 
confession in our mouths, and serious contrition 
in our hearts, we should apply ourselves to the 
God of mercy, deprecating His wrath and im- 
ploring pardon from Him, remembering the pro- 
mise of John: ‘If we confess our sins, He is 
faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to 
cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”—M. }. 

Sermons: 
v. 8. 9. Avaustine: If we say that we have 
no sin, etc. Libr. of the Fathers, 20. 947. 

TreNncu: Sin forgiven by a faithful and just 
God. 

Ver. 9. Burnet, Ginpert: God’s readiness to 
receive returning sinners. Pract. Serm., 2. 321. 

Hoox,W. T.: Auricular Confession. Contro- 
versies of the Day, 187.—M. ]. 


CHAP. 11. 1-2. 


The Third Inference.—Reconciliation and Redemption. 


CuHaprter II. 1-2. 


1. My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. 
2 sin, we have an advocate with the Father, 


And if any man 
Jesus Christ the righteous: And he? is the 


propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins? of the whole world. 


Verse 2. Π καὶ αὐτὺς--ἐστι. “And He is Himself.” Lillie: “ Here the emphatic or exclusive forceof αὐτὸς isim- 
portant. Heis the only propitiation for sin. The penitent may trust the Advocate who, righteous Him- 


self, died forhim. Such an Advocate God will hear.” 


The emphatic force is retained by Tyndale, Cran- 


mer, Geneva (he it is that); Syr. Latin versions except Castal. (056), German (the same); French yss. 


(c’est lui qui) Bengel (zpse. 


Hoc facit epitasin. PARACLETUS valentissimus, quia ipse PROPITIATIO).—Lach- 


mann following A. B. Vulg. places ἐστι before ἱλασμός.--Μ.} 

[3 German: “ But also for the whole world.” Winer, p. 599, specifies this clause as an instance of oratio va- 
riata, pointing out thatin περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων SE μόνον 
ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου, instead ofthe last words περὶ τῶν ὅλον τοῦ κόσ- 
ov, or instead of the first περὶ ἡμῶν might have been used.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Connection.—Luther is prepared to call him a 
theologian who is able to show the consistency 
and agreement of this passage. He agrees how- 
ever with Augustine, who says: ‘‘Ht ne forte im- 
punitatem videretur dedisse peccatis, quia dixit: 
Jidelis est et Justus, qui mundet nos ab omni iniqui- 
tate, et dicerent jam sibi homines: peccemus, securi 
faciamus, quod volumus, purgat nos Christus,—tollit 
{ἰδὲ malam securitatem et inserit utilem timorem. 


Male vis esse securus, solicitus esto; fidelis enim est. 


et justus, ut dimittat nobis delicta nostra, si semper 
tibi displiceas et muteris, donee perficiaris. Ideo 
quod sequitur? filiolii—Sed forte surrepit de vita 
humana peccatum. Quid ergo fiet? Jam desperatio 
erit? Audi. Si quis, inguit, peccaverit, etc.’’ So Bede, 
Calvin, Calov, Diisterdieck. [Alford thinks that 
there is more in the connection than this: ‘It is 
not corrective only of a possible mistake, but it 
is progressive—a further step taken in the direc- 
tion of unfolding the great theme of this part of 
the Epistle, enounced in ch. i. 5. The first step 
for those walking in the light of God was, that 
they should confess their sins: the next and con- 
sequent one, that they should forsake them, and 
agreeably to their new nature, keep His com- 
mandments. This verse introduces that further 
unfolding of our subject, which is continued, and 
especially pressed as regards the one great com- 
mandment of love, in our vy. 3-11.”—M.]. The 
difficulty lies not so much in the sequence of ideas 
as in the ethical relation and agreement of the 
points under consideration, viz.: the grace of 
God and reconciliation through Christ, the uni- 
versality and power of sin and man’s wrestling 
with it. On the one hand, the aid of God and 
Christ must neither make us disheartened in the 
struggle with sin, nor render us confident that 
we are sure to have it, and, on the other, the 
power of sin must not terrify us as if all were in 
vain. 

Ver. la. Call to the contest. My little 
children.—Thus ‘‘tum propter xtatem suam, 
tum propter paternam curam et affectum”’ (Horne- 
jus), and because he was their spiritual father 
(Gal. iv. 9), and as John»called out to the lapsed 
youth (Euseb. H. #. III, 23); τί με φεύγεις, τέκνον, 


tenert ac blandientis sunt amoris signa”). So Ch. 
11, 12, 28; iii. 18; iv. 4; v. 21, only pov is cer- 
tain, but in ch. iii. 18, it is uncertain. Here, 
just in view of the danger, the most tender and 
heartfelt love is awake. 

These things write I.—The Plural ταῦτα 
(not τοῦτο), has respect, not to a particular point, 
but to the whole in its vital harmony. We should 
be eager for the contest with sin, because God is 
light; because walking in the light is the preser- 
vative of our fellowship with God, and the means 
of deriving the benefits of the blood of Christ; 
because we must not deny having sin, and because 
God will gladly rid us of it. 

That ye sin not.—This is the design of his 
writing. Sinning applies to particular sins, not 
to small faults and inadyertencies only which 
would properly be no sins; they might gradually 
fall even into mortal sin (ch. vy. 16). It is neither 
= peccatis manere (Socinus, Episcopius), still less 
= to continue unbaptized (Loffler). 

Ver. 1b. The aid. And if any man sin 
[better: and if any one sin.—M. ].—Not an an- 
tithesis (Vulg. dé), but simple copulation (καὶ) ; 
since even in zeal against sin there ever recurs the 
indubitable case of sinning (ἐάν τις ef. the note 
on ch. 1. 0). [ἐὰν simply admits the possibility of 
sinning.—M.]. Both fighting against sin and 
sinning, go always together. The reference is 
general, and hence the apostle continues in the 
Plural. But the apostle does not affirm an in- 
ward necessity, that it must be so, as Calvin sup- 
poses: nam fieri non potest, quin peccemus; it may 
be so in fact, but the conditional particle must 
not be turned into a causal. Socinus also disfig- 
ures the thought; ‘si quis peccat, i. e., post Chris- 
tum agnitum, et professionem nominis ipsius adhuc in 
peccatis manet, necdum resipuit.”” The note of 
time and the intensification of the thought, are 
purely arbitrary; ‘‘for, on the one hand, a true 
Christian may sin, but he cannot remain in 
sins, and on the other, to one remaining in 
sins Christ is not the παράκλητος (Huther). 
“ΤΡ any one sin—not with the wilfulness of sin, 
but in spite of the will of his mind, which says 
no when sin is present.’’ (Besser). 

We have an advocate with the Father.— 
On παράκλητος see Lange on John xiv. 16, Vol. IV. 
p. 311 sq. [German edition.—M.]. The word has 


τὸν σαυτοῦ πατέρα; Lorinus (‘‘ Diminutiva nomina | here undoubtedly a Passive sense, viz.: advocatus, 


44 


orator, cause patronus (Luther, Vormund), inter- 
cessor. Its application to Christ, although its 
application in the Gospel, is limited to the Holy 
Spirit (Jno. xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26; xvi. 7), is an- 
ticipated in the first of these passages by the 
words ἄλλος παράκλητος; Christ is also Paraclete, 
the Holy Ghost only another Paraclete; this is 
clear from the context. [‘‘Christ is the real παρά- 
κλητος, the Holy Ghost His substitute” Huther.— 
M.]. Here Christis παράκλητος πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (cf. 
on ch. i. 2), there the Holy Ghost is μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς 
τὸν αἰῶνα. The Holy Ghost carries on the work of 
Christ in His followers, the world with its threat- 
enings notwithstanding, but Christ pleads the 
cause of His followers before God the Father, in- 
terceding for them with Him, even as Heb. iv. 
14-16; vii. 25-28; 8, lsqq.; Col. ix. 24, relate 
to a transaction between the Father and the Son. 
The ὑπερεντυγχάνειν of the Holy Ghost, Rom. viii. 
26, is a different matter, and does not affect the 
difference marked by John. The apostle says 
Father, not God, because the new relation into 
which those who are reconciled through Christ 
have been translated, is assumed as already ex- 
isting; hence not only because the Son intercedes 
with Him, but because He intercedes for be- 
lievers who, through Him, have become τέκνα τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ (ch. iii. 1, 2). The activity of the Paraclete 
is ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (Rom. viii. 84; Heb. vii. 
25).—Eyouev indicates two things. 1. The Plu- 
ral, as in ch. 1, 6 sqq., denotes the general cha- 
racter of the intercession and the universal want 
of Christians of such an intercessor. Augus- 
tine’s note is capital: ‘“Non dizit: habetis, nec: me 
habetis dizit, sed et Christum posuit, non se, et ha- 
bemus dizit, non habetis. Maluit se ponere in nu- 
mero peccatorum, ut haberet advocatum Christum, 
quam ponere se pro Christo, advocatum et inveniri 
inter damnandos superbos.” [The same Father 
says in the same connection after the words 
cited at the head of this section under Con- 
nection: ‘*TIlle est ergo advocatus: da operam tu 
ne pecces: si de infirmitate vite subrepserit pecca- 
tum, continuo vide, continuo displiceat, continuo 
damna; et cum damnaveris, securus ad judicem ve- 
nies. Ibi habes Advocatum: noli timere ne perdas 
causam confessionis tux. Si enim aliquando in hac 
vita committet se homo diserte linguse et non perit: 
committis te verbo et periturus est?” —M.]. 2. The 
Present indicates that the intercession is con- 
tinued and permanent in its operation. 

Jesus Christ the Righteous.—A/kao¢ is 
evidently put in antithesis to the still sinning 
children of God, and is not=<dyioc, innocens et 
sanctus (a Lapide), but His sinlessness and holi- 
ness as manifested in His life, ‘righteous, un- 
blemished and sinless” (Luther). While the 
sense of bonus, lenis suggested by Grotius is too 
weak here, as also in ch. i. 9, that given by 
Ebrard=d:xaiav, says too much, and is incorrect, 
because it is not the province of the intercessor 
to δικαιοῦν, and that of Bede, who says, ‘justus 
udvocatus, injustas causas non suscipit,’’ is equally 
inadmissible, because δίκαιος is not the adjective 
belonging to παράκλητον. Nor can it be taken in 
the sense of ‘‘fidelis et verax”’ (Socinus), like πίστος 
ch. i. 9. It corresponds exactly with the de- 
scription of the interceding High-priest, Heb. vii. 
26; ef. 1 Pet. iii. 18. Moreover here, where we 
have neither χριστὸν alone, nor υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, but 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


_—S—$ .... 


χριστὸν, preceded by ᾿Ιησοῦν, with emphatic force, 
the reference is not to the λόγος ἄσαρκος, but to 
the λόγος évoapxoc, who has shed His blood (ch. i. 
7). For both in Heb. vii. 25 sqq.; iv. 14 sqq., 
and Rom. viii. 34, the intercession of Christ is 
connected with His suffering on the Cross, as 
part of His high-priestly work and office. If 
Grotius supplies, and on the strength of ch. v. 
16; Gal. vi. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 6, puts after ἐάν τις 
ἁμάρτῃ “ΕἸ se ecclésie regende sanandeque tradi- 
derit”” remarking, ‘‘ non dicit: habet ille advocatum, 
sed ecclesia habet, que pro lapso precatur,” and 
“‘preces ecclesie Christus more advocati deo patri 
commendat,”’ (Jno. xvi. 26,) itisnot a Spiritu Sancto, 
sed a Grotiana audacia, as Caloy expresses himself. 
The Plural ἔχομεν does not involve the idea of the 
Church, but designates rather every individual, 
even the most advanced Christian, for every one 
is the object of our holy Saviour’s intercession. 
And this very thing is the comfortable help 
vouchsafed to those who fight against sin.—All 
this shows that Christ, who died for us and is 
now at the right hand of the Father, is our Ad- 
vocate pleading the cause of every Christian with 
the Father, provided that, clearly and profound- 
ly conscious of his guilt, he appear before God 
as a penitent, and fight manfully against the sin 
in his heart. Christ, as the Sinless and Right- 
eous One, lays before the Father the supplication 
of the penitent sinner, supported by His inter- 
cession, and as He has died for him on the cross, 
as He has wooed and drawn him to Himself to 
walk in light, so He desires to preserve him 
therein, and to aid him towards the attainment 
of sanctification, in the continued activity of an 
advocate in glory, even as He did intercede for 
His followers in the days of His humiliation 
(Jno. xvii. 9; Luke xxii. 32; xxiii. 84). 

Ver. 2. The assurance. And He is the Pro- 
pitiation for our sins.—Ka? is here the simple 
copula, which adds a further particular, and, 
therefore, neither—guia (a Lapide), nor—nam 
(Beza). This particular relates to the Person of 
the Intercessor (καὶ aitoc—et ipse, idemque) and is 
of perpetual validity and operation (ἐστὶ), like 
and parallel to the preceding ἔχομεν παράκλητον. 
The word ἱλασμὸς oceurs only here and in ch. iv. 
10, and there also connected with περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν 
ἡμῶν. The verb ἱλάσκεσθαι is also found in a 
Passive sense, Luke xviii. 13: ἱλάσϑητί μοι τῷ 
ἁμαρτωλῷ, where the reflexive sense is not wholly 
quiescent; be (become thou) mercifully dis- 
posed, suffer thyself to be mercifully disposed, it 
is consequently ἵλεων γενέσθαι, propitium fiert. Or 
with the obliteration of the reflexive force peculiar 
to the Middle, it has an Active sense, 6. g., Heb. 
ii. 17: ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ, to atone, 
expiate for the sins of the people, ezpiare. In 
classical Greek ἱλάσκεσθαι denotes only propitium 
facere aliquem, indicating the attempt of the pa- 
gan sacrifices to reconcile God. In Holy Serip- 
ture, and especially in the New Testament, God 
is not reconciled by us, but reconciles, as we learn 
from the instructive passage, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, ef. 
Col. i. 20; Eph. ii. 16. Man is καταλλαγείς, God 
only καταλλάξας, ἀποκαταλλάξας ἑαυτῷ, εἰς αὑτόν. 
In Clement Rom. we find already ἐξιλάσκεσϑαι τὸν 
ϑεόν, but it does not occur in a canonical writing. 
The Socinians have not overlooked this. Schlicht 
ing says: ‘Non est ergo cur quispiam ex hac 


CHAP. II. 1-2. 
ee ποὺ ee 


placandi voce concludat, deum a Christo nobis fuisse 
placatum” (see Delitzsch, Note on Heb., p. 97). 
The same view is very distinctly contained in 
our parallel passage, ch. iv. 10: αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν 
ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τὸν υἱόν αὑτοῦ ἱλασμὸν περὶ 
ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, God the Father has constituted the 
propitiation by sending therefor His Son. He 
Himself is the propitiation, which comprises 
the High-priest and the sacrifice. For according 
to Ktihner 1, 3. 878, p. 418, ἱλασμὸς denotes “the 
intransitive relation of the stem verb.” It is, 
therefore, neither—iiaorfp (Grotius, al.), for He 
is also the propitiatory sacrifice, nor—iAaorfpcov 
(Bengel, Liicke, de Wette al.), for He is the 
Agent accomplishing the propitiation (or expia- 
tion). As He its the Light of the world, the 
Truth, the Life, the Way in Himself, and not 
only has, shows or brings it, so He is Himself 
the Propitiation; itis ‘really existing in His 
Person”’ (Diisterdieck); He is ‘not the Recon- 
ciler or Propitiator through something external 
to Him, but through Himself” (Liicke). Thus 
He is called our ἁγιασμός, 1 Cor. i. 80; ef. 2 Cor. 
v. 21.—Nor is He ἱλασμὸς Θεοῦ, but περὶ τῶν 
ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The sins are the points with 
which the propitiation is concerned, to which it 
has reference (περί); neither substitution is 
mentioned here, nor the manner and means how 
this propitiation is accomplished and brought 
about. John evidently designates church-mem- 
bers by ἡμῶν (jfidelium, as Bengel explains the 
word); he writes to Christians, not to Jews. 
The sequel also simply contrasts Christians and 
non-Christians. Bengel justly observes with re- 
ference to ch. v. 19: ‘quam late patet peccatum, 
tam late propitiatio.” On that account the apostle 
adds : 

Yet not for ours only, but also for the 
whole world.—Here is simply oratio variata. 
He might have said: ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῶν ὅλου τοῦ 
κόσμου, joining what precedes with ἁμαρτιῶν, or 
connecting before with ἱλασμός, ov περὶ ἡμῶν δὲ 
μόνον, which would answer to the conclusion as 
it stands. See Winer p. 599; [also Appar. Crit. 
v. 2, 2.—M.]. A similar variation is foynd 
Heb. ix. 7. The point is, therefore, not brevilo- 
quence (Ebrard), nor the supplying of τῶν (Gro- 
tius, de Wette, Diisterdieck). Nor was it be- 
cause of the evil inhering in the κόσμος, since it 
is equally applicable to Christians (contrary to 
Huther). The Apostle’s design was manifestly 
to show the universality of the propitiation, in 
the most emphatic manner, and without any 
exception. This renders any and every limita- 
tion inadmissible. We must not except with 
Calvin the reprobos, because of predestination ; 
it is rather the double decretum absolutum 
which is here ‘excluded. Neither is it admissi- 
ble to take κόσμος as ecclesia electorum per totum 
mundum dispersa (as Bede does), nor to explain 
it of the heathen only (Oecumenius, Cyrillus, 
Hornejus, Semler, Rickli). In like manner we 
must not think only of the apostle’s age, but 
rather of the totality of unbelieving mankind in 
general (Spener, Paulus, de Wette, Liicke, San- 
der, Neander, Diisterdieck, Huther). As in ch. 
i. 7, the work of Christ extends to all the sins 
of His people, so it extends here to the sin of the 
whole world, without distinguishing between 
contemporaneous and successive generations 


45 


(Baumgarten-Crusius), or finding here any re- 
ference to the difference between sufficientia and 
eficacia. This renders it also perfectly clear that 
while Christ is the Paraclete of believing peni- 
tent Christians only, His propitiation has respect 
to, and is sufficient for all men in general. The 
idea of παράκλητος is, therefore, not wider than 
and including ἱλασμὸς, as Bede supposes [ ‘‘advo- 
catum habemus apud patrem qui interpellat pro nobis 
et propitium eum ac placatum peccatis nostris red- 
dit.”—M.]; or, vice versa, ἱλασμὸς is not the 
wider idea including παράκλητος (de Wette, Rick- 
li, Frommann); the two ideas are rather cdordi- 
nate, yet so that παράκλητος pre-supposes ἱλασμὸς; 
Christ has made a propitiation sufficient for all 
men. He ὦ Himself the propitiation, and would 
fain appear before the Father as the Paraclete of 
all men. There are two different parts of the 
Redeemer’s work, each having its real mode of 
action and effect, but of course in an ethical life- 
sphere. 
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The frontiers of Christianity. 

Systems which, like Pelagianism, do not acknow- 
ledge the necessity (ἐάν τις dudpry) or like Mani- 
chaeism with its fundamental dualism, deny the 
possibility (iva μὴ ἁμάρτητε) of redemption, if the 
question bears on the objects of redemption, and 
systems which, like Ebionism, deny the Divinity 
(δίκαιον), or inthe opposite case, like Docetism, 
the humanity (Ἰησοῦν) of the Redeemer, if the 
question bears on the subject of redemption; 
such systems are wholly foreign to Christianity. 

2. Of Christ. 

a. Sinlessness and holiness is the fundamental 
trait of His Being. He requires neither an ex- 
piation nor the help of an adyocate, but He 
makes the one and accords the other. 

6. His work on earth is indicated by His being 
ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν----καὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. 
This implies, 

a. As He is δίκαιος, and according to 1 Cor. i. 
80: σοφία---δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρω- 
σις, so He is Himself, so there is existing in 
Him, also ἱλασμός; and beside Him and without 
Him there is no propitiation for our sins. 

8. As He only is δίκαιος, and all men ἄδικοι, 
so it is He ofily who has made and does make a 
propitiation for all men; this affirms the univer- 
sality of the only ἱλασμὸς. 

y. The atonement extant relates to the sins 
which violate the majesty of God, disturb the 
holiness of the order of His Kingdom, and are 
the products of an enmity to the Glorious One, so 
that they arouse the reaction of the ὀργὴ; and 
therefore, as distinguished from καταλλαγῆ, re- 
conciliation which bears on sinners and creates a 
disposition, reconciliatio, ἱλασμὸς is to be taken 
in the sense of atonement, propitiation [or expia- 
tion] expiatio, and as regulating a disturbed rela- 
tionship. Hxpiation renders quiescent the ὀργὴ 
τοῦ ϑεοῦ, whereas reconciliation allays the enmity 
of man in his ἁμαρτία, ef. Nitzsch, System 3 135. 

J. The effect of the ἱλασμὸς is that he, whose 
sins are expiated, ceases to belong to the κόσμος, 
but not irresistibly, nor by a physical process, 
but only as a real beginning and supporting 
foundation, on which we must take our stand, and 
progress, in order that the καταλλαγῇ may ensue, 


46 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


and that we may become partakers thereof; in 
our ethical demeanor we must do our part when- 
ever occasion and aid are afforded us, otherwise 
we shall lose the ground of salvation, the begin- 
ning of blessedness, and the receptivity for the 
same. But our passage is silent as to the man- 
ner how it is done; even the αἷμα (ch. i, 7) is 
tacitly pre-supposed. Nor may an inference re- 
specting substitution be drawn from this passage, 
as Nitzsch (System, p. 284) has done. 

7. Christ is and remains the /Aacuéc—both for 
all sins and the sins of all, and for all ages and 
generations; His atonement is permanent in its 
operativeness. Not only in a general way, but the 
individual, every individual, is the object of ex- 
piation and reconciliation. This passage teaches 
the predestination of the salvation of all men. 

c. His work in heaven is indicated by παράκλη- 
τος πρὸς τὸν πατέρα; Which imports, 

a. That it concerns a work after His entrance 
into His original glory, consequently that which 
the glorified Redeemer does for us in heaven; He 
is not only a historical person and power, whose 
influence is felt for centuries, like Luther and his 
reformation, and the Greeks with their civiliza- 
tion, but He is an ever living person above, and at 
the same time in the world’s history. 

8. Jesus, the Christ, is consequently the Para- 
clete, not only as to His Divine, or as to His hu- 
man nature, but in His Divine-human person in 
its glory with the Father. 

γ. This work concerns our need of help remain- 
ing after our expiation and reconciliation effected 
by Him on earth, which need of help consists in 
our repeated sinning anew, and the consequent 
peril threatening anew our filial relation to God 
the Father effected by him; He desires ‘‘to can- 
cel again the effects of our sins on our relation 
to God,” (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis 11, 1, p. 545), on 
the object of this work, are “believers still sin- 
ning in their walk in the light” (Huther), and 
that without any exception. 

6. This work of the exalted Redeemer is an 
intercession for Christians belonging to Him in 
faith; it is a real work of the Lord, since He not 
only silently waits for the effects of His reconci- 
liation, but is actively engaged in pressing His 
merit with the Father, and that, as a vocalis et 
oralis intercessio. Our passage excludes all the 
intercessions of Romanism, those of the Virgin 
Mary, and of all the saints, who, as well as 
St. John, stand in need of intercession. See 
Conf. Aug. XXI., Apol. XXI. 10, sqq. For the 
saints are not deprecatores, still less propitiatores, 
ut orent, non tamen invocandi. It also dismisses 
the ‘‘grossly sensuous view” combated by Cal- 
vin when he says: “‘nimis crasse errare eos, qui 
patris genibus Christum advolvunt, ut pronobis oret;” 
the intercessio is not humilis, But it is equally 
false to regard it as only symbolical, as nuda in- 
terpretiva (per ostensa merita), as Bede does, or 
only as the continuing effect of the work of re- 
demption consummated by Christ in His death 
(Baumgarten-Crusius). Unfounded is the view 
of Kostlin (Lehrbegriff, pp. 31, 192), who under- 
stands παράκλητος to denote the eternal High- 
priest, who does not pray, but, as the Father for 
His sake loves also those who believe in Him, 
directly excludes intercession, because Jno, xvi. 
26 expressly deprecates ἐρωτᾷν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα 


περὶ ὑμῶν. The intercession of the Paraclete, 
which contemplates the perfection of believers 
and their preservation in the Sonship, must be 
well distinguished from the asking intercession 
of the High-priest, which contemplates the ac- 
ceptance of the Sonship, cf., Lange on John xvi. 
26, Vol. 4, p. 848, n. 16. [German edition, M.]. 

8. Of Christians. 

a. Sinfulness continues even in the most ad- 
vanced Christians, and manifests itself in the 
constant recurrence of particular sins. 

ὃ. The warfare against sin, however, is earnestly 
insisted upon. John does not say whether it is 
possible to a believer not to sin; nor does he say 
that he must sin (Calvin: ‘nam fieri non potest, 
quin peccemus’’), but demands that Christians 
should strive not to commit sin. The Apostle’s 
love of the Church (rexvia μδυ) constrains him to 
charge them not to sin, because those who sin not, 
keep themselves, (τηρεῖ ἑαυτὸν, ch. 5, 18) preserve 
their sonship with God and their regeneration 
(ch. iii, 6. 9). He views sin as man’s ruin and 
ungodliness. 

ὁ. The Christian requires no other human me- 
diator, or priest; he has become spiritual him- 
self, and no longer secular, himself a priest and 
notalayman. ‘These antitheses vanish to those 
who live in faith in Christ the Redeemer, do 
every thing through Him and for His sake, and 
refer every thing to Him. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Sin should not be denied, but fought and con- 
quered. Seek with Jesus the Sinless One for 
true humility in the knowledge of thy sin, and 
thou wilt find with Him the right courage to 
overcome thy sin. As thy perception of sin 
grows more keen, thy sensibility even of the most 
secret and most trifling sin more acute and deli- 
cate, thy sorrow for sin more profound, thy 
struggle with it more desperate, so thy perception 
of the Saviour’s life and work will also grow 
more keen, thy hearing of God’s still small voice 
more acute, thy joy over the cleansing power of 
His*word and work more profound, the Lord’s 
victory over thee and thy triumph with Him 
more certain. Although a man sanctify himself, 
he still sins. It is Jesus Christ, the Righteous, 
in His glory, who prays for the fallen, for an un- 
righteous world, that cannot forgive and forget 
any thing that judges and condemns. The 
demand not to sin is not devoid of consolation, if 
we do sin; but he only that strives to satisfy the 
demand will be satisfied with the consolation. 
Never forget that Christ has expiated sin, and 
that He had to expiate it, and thou wilt take a se- 
rious view of sin. 

Avausting:—‘ Ibi habes advocatum, noli timere, 
ne perdas causam confessionis tue. Si enim ali- 
quando in hac vita committit se homo disert# lingux 
et non perit, committis te verbo et periturus es 2?” 

Luruer:—The righteousness of Jesus Christ 
is on our side; for the righteousness of God is 
ours in Jesus Christ.—It is a certain fact, that 
thou art a part of the world: lest perchance thy 
heart might deceive thee and say: “The Lord 
died for Peter and Paul—not for me!” 

Srarke:—Teachers should deal with their 
hearers as a father deals with his children; but 


CHAP. II. 3-11. 


then the hearers should so demean themselves 
that such a course is possible.—Whoso serves the 
Church of Christ with his writings, should exa- 
mine himself as to the motive which prompts him; 
if he does unite with the motive of ambition or 
covetousness, it is sin to him; but if his motive 
is really and truly the glory of God, and he de- 
sires to make his gifts useful to men, it is well- 
pleasing to God.—Blessed consolation! Christ is 
our adyocate and spokesman, who has taken our 
cause in hand! Rejoice, ye tempted ones! there 
is no danger. Our Saviour claims His right.— 

Hevusner:—The Christian promises of grace 
are holy and not designed to abet idleness; they 
are not given to careless and hardened sinners, 
but to sorrow-stricken, contrite and penitent 
sinners.—Here is expressly taught Christ’s inter- 
cession for His people. It is of infinite value 
before God, because it is the intercession of the 
Righteous, of the perfectly Holy One, who may 
dare to intercede with God. 

[Cranmer, Asp.:—‘‘Christ was such an High 
Bishop, that He, once offering Himself, was suf- 
ficient by one effusion of His blood to abolish sin 
unto the world’s end. He was so perfect a Priest, 
that by one oblation He purged an infinite heap of 
sins, leaving an easy and ready remedy for all sin- 
ners, that His one sacrifice should suffice unto all 
men that would not show themselves unworthy, 
and He took unto Himself not only their sins, that 
many years before were dead and put their trust 
in Him, but also the sins of those, that until His 
coming again, should truly believe His gospel. 
So that now we may look for none other Priest 
or sacrifice to take away our sins, but only Him 
and His sacrifice. And as He dying once was 
offered for all, so, as much as pertained to Him, 
He took all men’s sins unto Himself.’’—M. ]. 

[Cuurcn Homitres:—‘All men are God’s crea- 
tion andimage, and are redeemed byChrist.”—M. ] 

[ BeveripGr:—“ If any man’s sins be not par- 
doned—it is not for want of sufficiency in Christ’s 
sufferings, but by reason of his own obstinacy or 
negligence in not performing the conditions re- 
quired for applying the sufferings of the human 
nature in Christ unto his own particular person. 
For seeing that that death, which was threatened 
to all mankind in the first Adam, was undergone 
by the whole nature of man in the second; hence 
all particular persons comprehended under that 
general nature, are capable of receiving the be- 
nefit of those sufferings, if they will but apply 
them rightly to themselves.” —M. ]. 

[Barrow:—‘‘ The whole world is here men- 
tioned in contradistinction from all Christians to 
whom St. John speaketh in this place: that the 
whole world of which he says below, that it ‘lieth 
in wickedness.’ Ch. 5,19. In this and in yari- 


47 


ous other places, where Jesus is called the Saviour 
of the world, that the world, according to its or- 
dinary acceptation, and as every man would take 
it at first hearing, doth signify the whole commu- 
nity of mankind, comprehending men of all sorts 
and qualities, good and bad, believers and infi- 
dels; not, in a new unusual sense, any special 
restrained world of some persons, particularly 
regarded or qualified, will, I suppose, easily ap- 
pear to him, who shall, without prejudice or 
partiality, attend to the common use thereof in 
Scripture, especially in St. John, who most fre- 
quently applieth it as to this, so to other cases or 
matters.”—M. ]. 

[NeanpER:—‘ What now is the practical sig- 
nificance of this truth, that Christ, the Holy, is 
our ever-abiding Advocate with the Father? To 
this perpetual mediation through the living 
Christ, to His ever-abiding priesthood for those 
who are reconciled to God through Him, corres- 
ponds the ever-remaining need of mediation in 
believers, their constant dependence upon the 
priesthood of Christ, in union with whom they 
are a generation consecrated to God. Under 
every feeling of sin and infirmity, in all their 
temptations and conflicts, they may securely trust 
in their indissoluble union with this Divine hu- 
man Personage, who Himself has felt all their 
necessities, and is near to them in the intimate 
sympathy of perfect love. Moreover, their whole 
inward and outward Christian life, flowing as it 
does from this sense of continual need of redemp- 
tion, will take its character from this ever-con- 
tinuing mediation of Christ, and their own con- 
scious connection therewith.’’—M. ]. 

[Ver. 1. Bunyan, Jonny: The work of Jesus 
Christ as an Advocate, clearly explained and 
largely improved, for the benefit of all believers. 
Many editions. 

CHARNOCK, STEPHEN: 
Christ. Works, 8, p. 1. 

Futter, A.: Christianity the Antidote to pre- 
sumption and despair. Sermons, 326. 

Hook, W. F.: Jesus Christ the Righteous. Ser- 
mons, 307. 

Vv. 1. 2. Crisp, T.: Sermons, 2, pp. 251-886. 

Revelation of grace no encouragement to sin. 

The faithful Friend at the bar of justice. 

Christ’s adyocateship for all the elect. 

Christ’s righteousness only dischargeth the 
sinner. 

The act of believing is not our righteousness. 

Faith the fruit of union. 

Christ alone our Mercy-seat. 

BeveripGe, Be.: The satisfaction of Christ 
explained. Works, 4. 162. 

Seabury, ΒΡ.: The atonement of Christ. Disc. 
2.118. M.j. 


The Intercession of 


5. Mark of the walk in the light. Obedience to the commandments of God, especially brotherly love. 


CuHaptTer II. 8—11. 


3 And hereby we’ do know that we know? him, if we keep? his commandments. 
4 He that saith,* I know® him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the 


23 


48 THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


5 truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God 
6 perfected’: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him 
7 ought himself also so’ to walk, even as he walked. Brethren,’ I write no new com- 


mandment unto you, but an old commandment which 
The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning? 


ye had from the beginning. 


8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in 
9 you; because the darkness is past," and the true light now shineth. He that saith 


10 
mb 


he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in! darkness even until now. 
loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in 
him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and 


He that 


knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. 


Verse 3. [} Comes : “And hereby we know;” the emphatic do know in E. V. suggests an idea foreign from the text. 


[3 German : “That we have known him.” 


Lillie: “ Have attained to this knowledge.” Where knowledge is 


spoken of merely as present, yv ox w, or ol 8 a is used, not ἔγνωκα. See John’s epistles passim.—E.V. 
vy. 13,14; ch. iii. 6; iv. 16; 2 Johni., and generally elsewhere.’’—M.]. 


8 Cod. Sin. has φυλάξωμεν for τηρῶμεν; Which is, however, given as well. The future by no means suits 


the Apostle’s thought. 


Verse 4. 4 A. B. Cod. Sin. al. insert ὅτε before ἔγνωκα. 
in vy. 6.9; ch. i. 6, or temp. fin. with ὅ τι, 


John usually employs the oratio indirecta with the infin., as 
as inch. i. 8,10. The oratio directa with o7+ occurs only 


in one other place, ch. iv. 20. It is difficult to understand why ὅτι should have been introduced here 
from there. [Rather: ὅτι was possibly omitted by later transcribers, on account of the difficulty it 


presented.—M. |. 


5German: “I have known Him,” éyv ὦ κα see above on v. 3, note 2—M.}. 


Verse 5. fs German: “In such an one the love of God is truly perfected.” 


God been perfected.”—M.]. 


Verse 6. ΤΟ. Cod. Sin. insert οὕτως before περιπατεῖν. 
it might have seemed superfluous to some. 


very emphatic. 


Lillie: “ Truly in this man hath the love of 


There is no reason why it should be inserted, although 
{It is wanting in A. B. Vulg.—M.] It renders the thought 


Verse 7. [8 German: “Beloved” ΜΙ ἀδελφοί, Oecum, Mill, Wetstein, is weakly supported :ἀγαπητοῖί is manifest] 
’ y Supp’ rf Mg 


the correct reading 


A. B. 6. Cod. Sin. Syr. Vulg. Griesb. Bengel, al. sustain it— ale 


[Ὁ German omits the words “from the beginning,” at the close of the verse. The corresponding am’ ἀρχῆς, 
omitted by A.B. C. Sin. al., are cancelled by Lachm., Tischend., Buttm., Theile.—M. }. 
Verse 8. 10 ὑμῖν, B.C. Cod. Sin., although the more difficult reading, is better authenticated than ἡ μῖν (A.) 
1 σκιά instead of σκοτία lacks the weight of authority, and is clear as to its tendency or origin from the 
contrast between the economy of the Old and New Testaments. 


[German: “ Passeth away,” παράγεται. 
75m, better than now.—M.]. 


The Present should by all means be retained. German: already, 


Verse 9. [13 German: “ The darkness,” ἡ σκοτία, both here and below in v.11. The omission of the Article in E. V. 


obscures the sense.—M.]. 


Verse 10. [18 German: ‘An offence” or “stumbling-block is πος in him.”—M.]. 
Verse 11. ΠῚ German: “The darkness ;” “because that darkness” (E. V.) is perplexing and ambiguous, better retain 


the more correct rendering, 
--μ.]. 


EXEGETICAL AND ORITICAL. 


The Connection. The call to the contest with 
sin on the ground of the Saviour’s antecedent 
propitiation and lasting intercession is connected 
with this section of the mark of the true know- 
ledge of and fellowship with God, as that of vital 
Christianity: see whether thou really art the 
object of the intercession of the Sinless One with 
Him who is Light! The malu securitas and the 
utilis timor move the Apostle to set this section 
with the given marks of a true Christian into 
close connection with the immediately preceding 
section of the atonement for the sins of the whole 
world, and namely, as a link in the chain of 
thoughts depending ony. δ.: ‘That God is Light.” 
His object is to excite a salutary, moral serious- 
ness of purpose in his readers; their obedience 
to the commandments of God, and especially their 
practice of brotherly love are given to them as 
tokens by which they may determine whether 
they are really in God’s kingdom of grace. He 
warns, therefore, ‘‘against the false security of a 
show-Christianity,” and guards his churches 
‘tagainst false confidence and carnal security” 
(Neander); similar are the views of the greater 
number of commentators, from Episcopius and 
Calov down to Diisterdieck, who, however, con- 
fines himself to pointing out the dependence of 
this section also on the leading thought in ch. i. 
5, 6, while the former take too narrow views of 


“because the darkness,” ὅτι ἣ σκοτία. German: “where he goeth to.” 


the connection with ch. ii. 1, 2, The copula καὶ 
denotes the close connection and appurtenance of 
the sequel to the preceding section. Hence it 
is not correct to make here the beginning of a 
new section, (Sander: ‘‘ Having thus far spoken 
of the proofs of salvation, he now proceeds to 
exhort his readers to its preservation’’), or to 
connect with ch. i. 5, 6 (Huther). 

Obedience to the commandments of God is the 
general characteristic of true Christianity. (v.v. 3-6). 

Ver. 3. And hereby we know.—John 
uses ἐν τούτῳ in order to refer to the sequel, as 
here, ch. iii. 16, 19, 24; iv. 9,10, 18,17; v. 2, or 
to the preceding, as in v. 5: iii. 10; the reference 
is generally plain from the context. In the for- 
mer case the Apostle is wont to indicate the mark 
whereby we know, by the addition of the preposi- 
tion ἐκ (iv. 13), or by ὅτι (ch. iii. 16, 19; iv. 9, 10), 
or iva (ch. iv. 17), or ἐὰν (vv. 8, 5), or ὅταν (ch. v. 
2), according as he wants to supply either “a 
really existing, historically given and objectively 
sure token” (Diisterdieck), on one only ideally 
existing and described as possible or conditional. 
The Apostle, who lays a strong emphasis on know- 
ing, understands to express in writing the different 
shades of thought with the same nicety and cor- 
rectness. [John uses the formula ἐν τούτῳ 
γινώσκομεν first as referring the demonstrative 
pronoun back to what has gone before, as ¢. g. 
in our vy. 5, and inch. iii. 10, If, however, the 
demonstrative pronoun in this or a like formula, 
looks onward, and the token itself, with the cir- 


CHAP. 11. 3-11 


49 


cumstance of which it is a token, follows, he ex- 
presses this token variously and significantly, 
according to the various shades of meaning to be 
conveyed. Sometimes the token implied in the 
demonstrative, follows in a separate sentence, as 
in ch. iv. 2; sometimes the construction is slightly 
changed, and the sentence begun with ἐν τούτῳ is 
not regularly brought to a close, but continued 
in a new and correlative form; 6. g. ch. iii. 24, 
where ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν is taken up by ἐκ Tov 
mv. And this way of expression is closely paral- 
lel to that where ὅτε completes the construction 
begun with ἐν τούτῳ So ch. iii. 16, 19; iv. 9, 
10, 13. In these cases the full objective reality 
of the token, as a fact, is set forth. It is an un- 
doubted fact that He has given us of His Spirit, 
that He has sent His Son: and from these facts 
our inference is secure to the other facts in 
question, that He abideth in us, ete. But in 
other passages we find instead of this ὅτε an ἵνα, 
ch. iv. 17, or an ἐὰν, as here, John xiii. 35, or 
ὅταν, ch. v. 2. This ἐὰν, ὅταν, mark the token 
implied in ἐν τούτῳ as one not actually existent, 
an historical or objectively certain fact; but as 
a possible contingency, something hypothetically 
and conditionally assumed: in other words as 
ideal.” Diisterdieck, pp. 172, sq.—M.]. He is 
concerned with the fact, 

That we have known Him.—The context 
must determine who is meant by αὐτὸν, God the 
Father or Christ; the reason must be sought in 
the section itself, where in vv. 3-6 we have first 
the repeated forms αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ and αὐτὸν and 
once ἐκεῖνος, v. 6. As the latter evidently denotes 
Christ, so the former applies with equal certainty 
to God the Father. Hence it was not the imme- 
diately preceding verse in which Christ is spoken 
of, which induced the Apostle to use αὐτὸν and 
to understand thereby the Father, but rather the 
all-controlling thought, ‘God is Light,” ch. i. 5. 
—So Bede, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Liicke, Jach- 
mann, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Briickner, 
Diisterdieck, Huther, Ebrard. It is referred to 
Christ by Augustine, Episcopius, Grotius, Luther, 
Caloy, Wolf, Lange, Sander, Neander. Socinus 
and Calvin are undecided. The word γινώσκειν, 
occurring twice in juxtaposition, bears each time 
substantially the same meaning: to know. But 
to know God is not a matter of the understanding 
only, a knowledge, a knowing, but matter of the 
whole man; it is an inward life, both matter of 
the will and of the mind; an entering into, a 
perceiving in order to be penetrated thereby, in 
order to receive it in receptivity. The object of 
this knowing becomes the substance of him that 
knows; the nature of the object of our knowing 
determines His coming near us and entering into 
relationship with us. God cannot be known 
without Himself; it is only by converse with 
Him that He allows Himself to be known (Oecume- 
nius; συνεκράθημεν αὐτῷ, Clarius ‘ societatem habe- 
mus cum eo.”); the knowledge of God presup- 
poses and promotes life-fellowship with Him. 
This last particular is also intimated by the per- 
fect ἐγνώκαμεν; the real fact of having known 
Him is described as finished, attended by an 
after-effect and still further deyelopment in con- 
tinued and ever-growing knowledge; it is parallel 
to κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ch. i. 6. Col. 8. ‘In- 


conditional pre-supposition both of knowing and 
loving; for only those in affinity. with each other 
know and love each other” (Diisterdieck). We, 
the Christians, renewed in Christ, created\to His 
image, are those who know. Hence it is false to 


take γινώσκειν like the Hebrew 17 “J? in the sense 
ror 


of to love (Carpzov, S. G. Lange), or only as a 
theoretical understanding of Divine truth (Soci- 
nus, Episcopius); nor may we intermingle know- 
ledge and love, and regard the latter as essential® 
to the former (Bede, Oecumenius, Liicke), al- 
though knowledge is conditioned by love (de 
Wette).—[It is not mere theoretical knowledge, 
but vital, experimental knowledge flowing from 
God, being received into the heart, and His in- 
ae our thoughts, our will and our actions. 
—M.]. 

If we keep His Commandments.—The 
verb τηρεῖν, probably connected with τέρας, [more 
probably with τῇρος, a watch, M.], a sign, de- 
notes properly to pay attention, to observe, ἄνεμον 
(Eccl. xi. 4), τὴν φυλακὴν (Acts xii. 6), the beloved 
disciples (Jno. xvii. 11, sqq.), τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ 
πνεύματος (Eph. iv. 8), ἑαυτόν (1 Jno. v. 18). 
Hence to preserve [keep in safety] (observare, 
servare) from loss, danger, injury. Fear, selfish- 
ness, hatred or love may be the motives of such 
preserving; the object of τηρεῖν enables us to 
infer the motive. His commandments—the com- 
mandments of God the Father; for the reference 
to Christ here is valid not so much because He 
gave commandments as because He kept them 
(cf. v. 6). 700 keep the commandments is not the 
same as ἐν φωτὶ περιπατεῖν (ch. i. 7), but an indis- 
pensable part of it, and-moreover a distinct, cog- 
nizable part of the greater, wide and profound 
whole, and as a sign or token peculiarly fitted to 
mark a conclusion. The commandments of God 
are clear, simple, well-defined; the expression of 
His will, given as much for His glory as for our 
salvation, evidences of His holy love, of His sanc- 
tifying compassion, and of His salutary right- 
eousness; they answer to His Being, and in like 
manner to the nature of His Law, and particu- 
larly to the nature of His creatures. If they ori- 
ginate in the love of God, the motive of obedience 
to them must also be the love of God, who gave 
them, and the love of themselves as the gifts of 
His love. But the words themselves do not war- 
rant the opinion of Augustine and Bede, that John 
insists here upon love. He only demands the un- 
exceptional keeping of the commandments of 
God, and by the use of the Article and the Plural 
(τὰς ἐντολὰς), excludes any and every arbitrary 
selection. He lays down a sure and infallible 
token; and the erroneous view just stated proves 
it to be such. But he does not lay down this 
keeping as a fact by the use of ὅτε, but as a sup- 
position by éav; with this agrees also the choice 
of the word τηρεῖν instead of ποιεῖν (which is 
likewise conditioned by the words of our Lord in 
Matth. xxviii. 20: τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην 
ὑμῖν). We cannot do, but only keep the command- 
ments of God. And even this is very limited, 
unsatisfactory, liable to frequent and manifold 
interruptions. Least of all can it be John’s 
meaning (according to ch. i. 8-10) to suppose 
Christians capable of fully keeping and prac- 


ward affinity of life, real appurtenance is the un- | tising the commandments of God. But notwith- 


50 


standing all the shortcomings of obedience to the 
commandments of God, and despite all the imper- 
fections and sins of Christians and their life, 
there still remains a sharp contrast between those 
who remember the commandments of God to do 
them (Ps. ciii. 18), and those who do not mind 
them at all, or only know them. However great 
may be the difference of believers among them- 
selves, their knowledge of God and their obedi- 
ence to the commandments of God will be reci- 

rocally related, and the latter will always remain 
a sure token of the former, which cannot be a 
fact in the life of Christians without the latter. 
On that account the Apostle, as is his wont, (as 
in ch. i. 8, 9), gives prominence to the opposite 
with a progression in the thought and by way of 
explanation. [Huther thinks it note-worthy that 
John never designates the Christian command- 
ments by νόμος, a term used by him only with re- 
ference to the Mosaic code of laws, but mostly by 
ἐντολαΐ (only occasionally λόγος ϑεοῦ, or χριστοῦ); 
nor by the verb ποιεῖν (except in Rev. xxii. 14), 
but τηρεῖν. Pauluses the term τηρεῖν ἐντολῆν only 
at 1 Tim. vi. 11; it occurs besides in the N. T. at 
Matth. xix. 17 (cf. ch. xxviii. 20). M.]. 

Ver. 4. He that saith I have known 
Him, and keepeth not His command- 
ments, isa liar.—The progression in the deve- 
lopment and unfolding of the thought lies in the 
Singular, which sets it forth not as indefinitely 
general, but as general and true in its applica- 
tion to each individual. It lies moreover in the 
negative form, so that we may and must not only 
infer the knowledge of God from the keeping of 
God’s commandments, and from other facts as 
well, but that the keeping of the Divine com- 
mandments, obedience, cannot and must not be 
wanting where there is a knowledge of God, 
which deserves that name. The words ‘he is a 
liar,” moreover, are intensivé and stronger than 
“he lies” (ch. i. 6), or ‘he deceives himself” 
(ch. i. 8). Not a single act, but his whole nature 
and being, is thus designated; the Jie reigns in 
him. There may first of all be wanting self-exa- 
mination in the light of divine truth, or it may be 
self-deception and unconscious hypocrisy, but the 
conscious lie will follow; one desires to appear 
more than oneis. The further particular, 

And the truth is not in him, gives empha- 
tic prominence to the status, the emptiness of 
such a person, cf. ad. ch. i. 8, in Exegetical and 
Critical. 

Ver. 5, similar to ch. i, 8—10, in antithesis 
with y. 4, refers back to y. 8, by δὲ, but progress- 
ing both in the subject-clause and in the predi- 
cate-clause. 

But whoso keepeth His word; literally: 
‘but whoso keepeth of Him the word.” —Tnpi, keep- 
eth, stands emphatically first, so αὐτοῦ precedes 
τὸν λόγον, and λόγον instead of the manifold 
évrodai, in order to mark the unity. ‘ Pracepta 
multa, verbum unum,” observes Bengel, and a La- 
pide correctly says: “ Dicit verbum ejus in singu- 
lari, quia precipue respicit legem caritatis: enim 
ceteras omnes in se comprehendit.” Hence ὁ λόγος 
is not the synonym of αἱ ἐντολαί (Huther), nor 
the comforting message of the gospel, nor the re- 
quirement of faith, but the revelation of the will 
of God as a unit, or the revelation of His com- 
mandments in their relation as a unit to His pur- 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


pose of grace (Ebrard). As this sentence corres- 
ponds with “if we keep His commandments” 
(v. 5), and is more definite by the pron. rel. than 
is the other sentence by ἐὰν, so the ἐγνώκαμεν αὐ- 
τὸν is parallel with ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
τετελείωται. It matters not how much we distin- 
guish knowledge and love, and warn against their 
being confounded, they are nevertheless intrinsi- 
cally connected and correlatives: ‘*Amor presup- 
ponit cognitionem”’ [says Grotius, which Huther 
admits, and adds M.]: ‘‘Cognitio presupponit 
amorem.”” Both are true. From this it is evident 
both that we must apply αὐτὸν, v. 8, to God the 
Father, and that ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ ϑεοῦ must denote our 
love of God (as ch. ii. 15; iii. 17; iv. 12; y. 3.) 
The knowledge of God and the love to God must 
correspond with each other. This is the view of 
the majority of commentators, viz.: Bede, Oecu- 
menius, Luther, Beza, Lorinus, Socinus, Grotius, 
S. G. Lange, Liicke, Jachmann, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, de Wette, Briickner, Neander, Huther, 
Diisterdieck, and others. Others (Flacius, 8S. 
Schmid, Calov, J. Lange, Bengel, Sander), under- 
stand the love of God tous (as in ch. iv, 9, 10), firstin 
opposition to the Romish exposition of the meri- 
torious perfectio caritatis nostre aut operum nos- 
trorum, and secondly on account of τετελείωται, 
which, they say, cannot be predicated of our 
love. But neither is it ‘the love commanded by 
God” (Episcopius) in which we have to exercise 
ourselves, nor the relation of reciprocal love be- 
tween God and man, the communio, societas and 
conjunctio, mutua amicitia et conjunctio (Ebrard 
following several commentators, chiefly [Ger- 
man] Reformed), nor ‘the love of God in us, com- 
prising both God's love to us, through which, and 
our love to God, in which we live.’’ (Besser.) 
The explanation of τετελείωται, ts perfected, perfect, 
is difficult. We have no right to dilute the word 
with Leza, as if John were speaking not of a per- 
fecta caritas, but of an adimpleta caritas, without all 
show and hypocrisy, so that the reference were 
only to sincere love and τελειοῦν were only mettre en 
exécution [to put into execution.—M.]. Nor canit 
be right to hold with Socinus and his successors, 
the rationalists, that the reference is to a relative 
perfection adapted to the powers of man, because 
ἀληθῶς prohibits such an interpretation. It sig- 
nifies, as in ch. iv. 12, 17, 18, perfected, has be- 
come perfect. ‘* John supposes the case that some- 
body really keeps the word of God, and from this 
ideal stand-point says with the fullest right that 
such a keeping of the Divine commandments evi- 
dences a perfected love to God in practice (ef. 
Liicke). The more the ideal keeping of the sen- 
tence becomes apparent to us, so much the more 
do we perceive in it a paracletical power, an in- 
centive to the realization of that ideal, a holding 
up of Christian duty, ὀφείλει, vy. 6.” (Diister- 
dieck). Calvin says: ‘Si quis objiciat, neminem 
unquam fuisse repertum, qui deum ita perfecte dili« 
geret, respondeo, sufficere, modo quisque pro gratiz 
sibi date mensura ad hance perfectionem adspiret. 
Interim constat definitio, quod perfectus dei amor sit 
legitima sermonis ejus observatio. In ea nos pro- 
gredi sicut in notitia proficere decet.” «But Huther 
is perfectly right in his strictures of Calvin’s 
view which approaches that of Socinus, who 
says: ‘‘Hst autem perfectio ista caritatis in Deum et 
obedientia preceptorum ejus ita intelligenda, ut non 


CHAP. II. 3-11. 


51 


---------------------------------Ξὕ---- τ τοΠΕ a ssSSSSSSSSS 


omnino requiratur, ne οἱ quicguam deesse possit, sed 
tantum ut ejusmodi sit, qua Deus pro sua ingenti 
erga nos bonitate contentus esse voluit.’”’—M.]. 
‘“*Where the word of God is perfectly fulfilled, 
there the love to God is perfect; perfect love 
shows itself in perfect obedience. It is certainly 
true that the Christian at no moment of his life 
has reached this perfection, but is always only 
growing in that direction. John, however, does 
not refer to that here.” The Apostle now quickly 
subjoins the concluding thought: Hereby (not 
“by the perfection of love” (Socinus), but. ‘“by 
obedience to the commandments of God,” Huther, 
Ebrard; for this thought concerning obedience as 
the token of the knowledge of God and of life- 
fellowship with Him governs this whole thought- 
complex) we know that we are in Him. 
‘Ep αὐτῷ ἐσμέν is the final and summary expression 
of ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, v. 3, and of κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν 
μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ch..i. 6, of the inward life-fellowship of 
Christians with God. It is more than man’s de- 
pendence on God in virtue of his inward relation 
to Him (as in Acts xvii. 28). As having known 
Him is not without being in Him, obedience of 
His commandments must stand as the mark of 
the knowledge of God, while the love of God [i. 
e., our love to God, M.] must supervene. What 
is said here amounts therefore to more than the 
explanation given by Grotius: ‘Christi ingenii 
discipuli sumus.” 

Ver. 6 is the final and full conclusion of this 
section. 

He that saith he abideth in Him, ought 
himself also so to walk.—First: ‘Synonyma, 
cum gradatione: ILLUM NOSSE, IN ILLO ESSE IN ILLO 
MANERE, cognitio, communio, constantia,”’ (Bengel); 
then ἐντολὰς τηρεῖν, τὸν λόγον, περιπατεῖν καθὼς 
ἐκεῖνος. ᾿Ἐν αὐτῷ, particularly by the side of ἐκεῖνος 

Jesus), and different from it, evidently denotes 
God the Father, and not Christ, as maintained by 
Augustine, Wolf, Neander, al., although the recol- 
lection of μένειν, the favourite expression of Jesus, 
which occurs ten times in John xy. 4-11, may have 
influenced the language of the Apostle in this pas- 
sage; at all events, the abiding spoken of in the 
Gospel is also connected with a reference to the 
commandments. ‘‘Being and abiding in God de- 
note one and the same fellowship with God. The 
latter term merely superadds the description of 
its permanence and continuance, which is not con- 
tained in the former.” (Frommann.) 

Ought (ὀφείλει) does not designate a mark or 
sign, but only the obligation. 

So to walk even as He walked.—(i. ὁ. 
Christ). This walking is not a mark or sign, 
which exists or might exist, or given as a touch- 
stone to determine the Christianity of individuals, 
but simply designates the duty and obligation of 
Christians, as the disciples of Christ. Nor is it 
consequently a moment of abiding or being in God, 
a part thereof, but a goal to be reached, and a 
problem to be solved by every Christian, with 
the obligation of which none may dispense. _So 
(οὔτως) to walk as Christ walked—is a require- 
ment, compliance with which involves constant 
learning and ceaseless labour. The reference to 
Christ by καϑὼς ἐκεῖνος occurs several times in 
this Epistle, ch. iii. 8, 7; iv. 17. 

As He walked points neither to particular 
traits in the life of Christ, e. g. prayer for His 


enemies (Augustine), contempt of the world and 
its pleasures, and patience in sufferings (Bede), 
nor, as in 1 Pet. ii. 21, sqq., to His self-humilia- 
tion and suffering, nor only to His perfect obe- 
dience of the commandments of God, nor to His 
doing only; but it is the concrete representation 
of walking in the Light (ch. i. 7), of the Divine 
life in Christ, whose essence and kernel is love. 
So that Paul may even exhort us to imitate, COpYy, 
follow God (Eph. v.1,) and to walk in love (v. 2). 
But this must not be confined to the inward dis- 
position, but must have an adequate expression in 
all our doings, in our whole conduct, at every step 
of our life; hence περιπατεῖν. John and his mysti- 
cism are certainly not afflicted with sentimental- 
ism. The emphatic οὕτως can hardly be dispensed 
with here [See Appar. Crit. v. 6, note 7.—M.]. 

Brotherly love in particular is now specified as 
a mark of true Christianity (vv. 7-11). 

Ver. 7. Beloved, so in ch. iii. 2, 21; iv. 1, G 
11; in the last two passages it is particularly con- 
nected with the commandment of brotherly love. 
Beloved of God the Father in Christ, whom they 
ought to follow in that they walk in love to the 
brethren, as He did. [Huther: “Such an ad- 
dress does not necessarily indicate a new para- 
graph, but it bursts forth also in cases when the 
matter in question is to be brought home to the 
hearts of readers or hearers; which is the case 
here.” —M. ]. 

I write not a new commandment to 
you.—The whole context, both what immediately 
precedes and what follows, requires us to regard 
this ἐντολῇ as a commandment, even as the com- 
mandment of brotherly love. The consideration 
of v. 6 teaches first that ὀφείλει constrains us to 
hold fast to the meaning of ἐντολή, commandment, 
and secondly exhorts us to walking after Christ; 
while v. 9 treats of love to the brethren. The 
latter is the definite and explicit declaration of 
what is implied inthe former. It is improper to 
say that the reference here is to the different 
commandments; the commandment, to walk after 
Christ, and the commandment, to love the breth- 
ren; the two commandments are not alongside 
one another, but inside one another, and so that 
the latter is included in the former, not vice versa, 
that consequently the former is more general and 
less definite than the latter, whereas the latter is 
particular and clearly defined [ἡ 6. Walking after 
Christ is the general, loving the brethren the 
particular.—M.]. A separation is impossible 
here; nor must vv. 7-11 be subdivided as if 
vv. 7, 8 treated of something different from vy. 
9-11. That which is stated in such explicit and 
definite terms in the second half, with reference 
to the first half of the whole section, must be 
already contained and intimated in the first half. 
The argument proceeds from the formal, as given 
in the walk of Christ, to the material which is 
contained therein. The connection is supported 
by the Apostle’s mode of treatment. For in ch. 
iii. 11, 23; iv. 7, 21, he uniformly passes from 
general precepts to the commandment of love. 
Jno. xv. 13, 17, and particularly ch. xiii. 34, pre- 
sent an analogy, and supply the basis for this 
part of the Epistle. 2 Jno. 4-6 is the perfect 
parallel passage which specifies walking in truth, 
walking after His commandments, walking in the 
new comandments, which we had from the be- 


52 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


ginning, and which they had heard. The cor- 
responding points here are walking in the light, 
walking as He walked, after the commandments 
of God, in love of the brethren. But the referénce 
cannot by any means be to walking after Christ 
per se in v. 6, because just there the ἐντολῇ is 
described as ὁ λόγος ὃν ἡκούσατο. The command- 
ment given is therefore, not Christ’s walk which 
is seen, but His Word, which is heard; the com- 
mandment was not only given in acts, but spoken 
in the word. Of course we must not understand 
ὁ λόγος as designating the Gospel which is 
preached, and make it the ἐντολῇ. Lastly, the 
general grammatical usage forces us to take 
ἐντολή [in its usual sense—M.] as commandment, 
and not in the sense of doctrine or truth, as 
Flacius, Caloy, J. Lange, Rickli, Ebrard under- 
stand it. We ought therefore to agree with Au- 
gustine, Bede, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, 
Calvin, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Neander, 
Sander, Huther and Diisterdieck, who undetstand 
the commandment of brotherly love, and not with 
expositors like Beza, Socinus, Episcopius, Liicke, 
Frommann and others, who hold that the com- 
mandment applies only to walking after Christ. 
[it is doubtful whether Braune’s view of the re- 
lation between walking after Christ and loving the 
brethren is correct. It strikes me that the case is 
stated with greater lucidity and correctness by 
Huther, who says with reference to the two views 
of the commentators: ‘‘These two views seem to 
be opposed to each other, but they are opposed 
only when it is assumed that John’s design was 
to specify a particular commandment in contra- 
distinction from other commandments. But that 
assumption is erroneous: the commandment to 
keep the commandments (or the word) of God 
after the pattern of Christ, or to walk in the 
Light, is none other than that of loving one’s 
brother. From ch. i. 5, onwards John does not 
refer to different commandments, but to a general 
commandment of the Christian life, which flows 
from the truth that God is Light. The reference 
is to this commandment when John, in order to 
bring the matter right home to the hearts of his 
readers, says: οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν, so 
that ἐντολή does not refer to a commandment he 
is about to specify, but to the commandment he 
had already specified before (however, not in y. 
6 only), and which he is about to define more 
clearly in the sequel as its conerete substance.” 
This view Huther pronounces in agreement with 
that of Diisterdieck: ‘The solution of the riddle 
is... . that the holy commandment to walk as 
Christ did walk, is fully and essentially contained 
in the commandment of brotherly love.” ‘We 
encounter here the view that as the whole exem- 
plary life of Christ is contained in His love of 
us, so our whole walk in the Light is substan- 
tially nothing else than following after Christ in 
this full brotherly love.’—M. ]. 

The words ‘‘not a new commandment” are ex- 
plained by what follows: 

But an old commandment, which ye 
had from the beginning; this old com- 
mandment is the word which ye heard.— 
The commandment, therefore, is not new, but old, 
because the readers do not only now learn to 
know it by his writing, (γράφω), but because they 
have it already, and had it from the beginning. It 


is also said how they did receive it; they had 
heard it, that is, it had been announced to them. 
This renders it necessary to refer ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς to 
the beginning of Christianity, and the Christian 
standing of the readers; for the beginning, as 
far it concerns their life, cannot be anterior to 
their time, but must coincide with their life and 
the time when it was announced to them. So, 
also, v. 24;°ch. iii. 11; 2 Jno. 5,6. Ye can 
never mean majores vestri (Grotius), but desig- 
nates the readers themselves, the Church, to 
whom the Epistle is addressed. Nor is there 
room for a distinction between Jewish Christians 
who had it already formerly, and Gentile Chris- 
tians who had only heard it by the preaching of 
the Gospel, as Wolf draws it, and for saying that 
the beginning in the case of the former denotes 
what is written in the Old Testament by Moses 
(Flacius, Clarius), and that in the case of the 
latter the beginning dates even from the crea- 
tion, written in their heart and conscience (the 
Greeks, fully corresponding with what Luthardt, 
on free-will, p. 12, sq., 22, observes as a charac- 
teristic of the Greek Church which is fond of con- 
necting Christianity with the sphere of the uni- 
versally human as contradistinguished from the 
Latin Church, which prefers to give prominence 
to the specific newness of the Christian, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Credner). But we must not 
say that az’ ἀρχῆς bears precisely the same 
meaning as in ch. i. 1; ii. 18, 14; 11]. 8, since 
the meaning is determined by the context, which 
points here to the beginning of the Christian 
life. This is the view of most commentators, 
viz.: Calvin, Beza, Socinus, Episcopius, Lange, 
Rickli, Liicke, de Wette, Sander, Neander, Bes- 
ser, Diisterdieck, Huther and al.—The Article in 
the addition (ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά) marks once more 
the age of the commandment which had already 
been indicated by the antithesis (οὐκ-καινὴν, ἀλλὰ 
παλαιάν). It is called straightforth ὁ λόγος, ὃν 
ἠκουσάτε, because, as all ἐντολαὶ run together in 
the one ἐντολὴ, as this one ἐντολῇ runs through 
and fills the whole λόγος, the evangelical ἀγγελία: 
«Ὑ 6 should love one another as Christ has loved 
us;” wherefore ὁ λόγος is not the chief substance 
of the word, but the word itself. As εἴχετε meant 
that they had, knew and used the commandment, 
so ἠκούσατε adds how they came to possess it: by 
the preaching of the Apostles. The addition is, 
therefore, not a correction of γράφω, as if John 
wanted to say: it is not I that give it to you 
now while I am writing, but you have heard it 
long ago of Christ (Baumgarten-Crusius), [for 
ἠκουσάτε has no immediate relation to γράφω, 
but to eiyere.—M. ]. 

Ver. 8. Again I write unto you.—IId/Aw 
indicates a close connection with the preceding 
verse, rendered unmistakable by the repetition 
of the same word in the same form: γράφω, v. 7, 
—radw belongs to the verb (Liicke, de Wette), 
although ἐντολὴν καινὴν stands before γράφω, and 
signifies again, once more, a second time, and 
Erasmus, with whom most commentators agree 
here, is not wrong in saying (against Huther): 
‘‘et contrarietatem declarat et iterationem,” because 
πάλιν is used by Homer and Hesiod in the sense 
of back, backward, and against, πάλιν ἐρεῖν to gain- 
say [ἴ. e., say against—M. ], but in Herodotus and 
Attic, and later writers generally, it bears almost 


CHAP. II. 3-11. 


53 


------- ----ς-ς-ρ----ς--ς-ς-ςς-ς-ς-ς-ς-ς [88 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsssesees 


the exclusive signification of again, once more, 
anew; but Erasmus errs when he adds: ‘‘hie non 
repetitionis sed contrarietatis est declaratio ;” it is 
here corrective and epanorthotic (Beza, Episco- 
pius, Caloy, Wolf, Liicke, al.).—Ipd¢w, both here 
and in y. 7, denotes the present act of the Apos- 
tle, and has its ordinary, literal sense, not—=TI 
prescribe (Baumgarten-Crusius), nor does the 
Accusative following γράφω admit the construction 
=I write of, concerning the commandment. 
[As]anew commandment, which thing 
is true in Him and in you.—[Knapp’s para- 
phrase πάλιν (ὡς) ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν (τοῦτο) 
6 ἐστιν ἀληθές is the basis of as bracketed in the 
text.—M. ].—This is a further proof of the close 
connection of this verse with v. 7; John adheres 
to what he had just said, writes still on the same 
point, and it is, therefore, simply impossible to 
make vy. 8 begin a new paragraph, as does Eb- 
rard. The clause 6 ἐστεν ἀληϑὲς relates to the 
preceding matter, as is evident from the relative 
pronoun, and cannot be connected with the fol- 
lowing clause introduced by 67, as Ebrard 
thinks. The Neuter forbids our regarding it as 
a relative clause belonging to καινὴ ἐντολὴ, as 
maintained by Diisterdieck, who assumes a con- 
structio ad sensum, and says that ‘‘the real sub- 
stance of ἐντολὴ is declared to be true, both in 
Christ and in the readers,” but this would re- 
quire ἡ---ὠληϑῆς (Liicke), and ‘the thing re- 
quired by ἐντολὴ is nothing else but the ἐντολὴ 
itself” (Ebrard). We must take it rather as co- 
Ordinated with ἐντολὴν καινὴν, and construe it like 
ἐντολὴν καινὴν, as the object of γράφω. The above- 
mentioned paraphrase of Knapp is the most sim- 
ple construction, although we must not attach to 
the inserted ὡς the meaning of ‘‘tanquam si nova 
esset,” aS Knapp does, for then it could not be 
called a new commandment; yet both the Apos- 
tle and our Lord Himself describe it by the epi- 
thet new (Jno. xili. 834); ὡς, moreover, denotes 
the reality (Rom. xv. 15, and elsewhere), and is 
well adapted to being supplied, in order to point 
out the right explanation.—But we have to begin 
with the explanation of 6 ἐστιν, which stands em- 
phatically first; the reference is consequently to 
that, which is—in Him and in you. Αὐτός by 
the side of ὑμῖν denotes a person, so that ἐν αὐτῳ 
is not per se ac simpliciter (Socinus), and the 
context requires its being explained of Christ 
and not of God (Jachmann, who is then com- 
pelled to understand ἀληϑὲς in connection with 
ἐν αὐτῷ, in a different sense from the same word 
in connection with ἐν ὑμῖν ; in God it has its rea- 
son, 7m you it has its evidence). There is no 
reason why the preposition should be rendered 
respectu, in respect of, or by (which something 
may be known, identified as true, de Wette); it 
simply means: im or with Christ and you. At 
the same time ἀληθὲς bears of course the sense of 
real, as in Acts xii. 9 [7. e., it denotes actual re- 
ality (Huther, Meyer)—M.]. The sentence, 
moreover, must not be torn to pieces after the 
manner of Erasmus, Episcopius and Grotius: 
‘quod verum est in illo, id etiam in vobis verum est, 
esse debet.’” But brotherly love evidenced in the 
walk is true in Christ the Head and in the read- 
ers of the Epistle, as the members of His Body. 
No matter how great the difference of that real- 
ity may be, it is still there [is actually, really 


extant.—M.]. This stands as ἃ new command- 
ment, and, therefore, John writes it thus. He 
considers the ἐντολὴ as the main point, places it 
first, and then predicates of it that it is new, 
after having previously called it old.—He called 
it old from the stand-point of the present with re- 
gard to the former entrance into Christianity, 
which took place long ago; he describes as new 
that which is true in Christ and His people, and 
sees first in Him what is now also in His people, 
what Christ required of His followers as a new 
commandment (Jno. xiii. 34), and from this 
stand-point, from their entrance into Christianity 
and their fellowship with Christ, he, like the 
Lord Himself, calls this a commandment which 
is new. The Apostle consequently does not refer 
here to the permanent duration of the command- 
ment of brotherly love, which requires to be con- 
stantly inculcated anew (Calvin: ‘perpetuo vi- 
gere,” Socinus, Knapp, al.), nor to man’s new 
birth (Augustine, Bede, al.). It is new by the 
very words added by Christ Himself in Jno. xiii. 
94: «καθὼς ἠγάπησα budc,” as He has proved it 
in fact, and as he does effect and operate it in 
His people. [Huther: ‘The sense is: that 
which is already true, i. 6., a reality, in Christ 
and in you, to wit: the τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ (cf. Jno. xy. 10, where Christ says of Him- 
self: ἐγὼ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ πατρός μου τετήρηκα), I 
write to you as a new commandment,” and then 
he adds in a foot-note, ‘‘It is manifestly not 
more surprising that John sets up before his 
readers anew as a commandment that which has 
already become a reality in them, than that he 
announces to them truths, of which he says him- 
self that they know them already.”—M. ]. 
Because the darkness passeth away and 
the true light shineth already.—This sen- 
tence answers the question: Why does the Apos- 
tle write as a commandment which is new that 
which is true in Him and the readers of the Epis- 
tle? Hence ὅτε is simply causal, because; and 
this whole sentence corresponds exactly with the 
preceding (Diisterdieck, Huther). "Or, conse- 
quently, is not merely dependent on ἀληϑές or 
ἐντολή (Socinus, Bengel, Ebrard), so that it 
has declarative force=that; the point is not to 
prove that the light shineth and that the dark- 
ness passeth away, nor could that be the sub- 
stance of a commandment. Nor can we divide 
(with Liicke and Briickner) the sentence that the 
commandment of walking in the light manifests 
itself as new in Christ (in whom the true light 
has appeared), and in the readers (in whom this 
light diffuses itself and shines already, scattering 
the darkness), and refer the former to ἐν αὐτῷ, 
which is not said at all, or to τὸ φῶς φαίνει, and 
the latter to ἐν ἡμῖν or ἡ σκοτία παράγεται. We 
have no occasion or warrant for doing so. The 
antitheses ἡ σκοτία and τὸ φῶς ἀληθινόν must be 
taken in an ethical sense, and denote the sinful 
and the holy, as the elements in which one lives 
and walks; and this construction is rendered ne- 
cessary by the subsequent verses and the whole 
context. Both are opposed to each other, but 
they exist alongside each other, increasing or 
decreasing (παράγεται---ἤδη φαίνει). The former 
consequently does not denote the economy of the 
Old Testament or paganism, which indeed were 
never without light, nor the latter only the per- 


54 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


son of Christ, as in John i. 9 (Oecumenius, Ben- 
gel), nor “Christus wna cum doctrina ejus et effectus 
fide et caritate” (Lange); for the expression has 
a wider reach. The oxoria denotes the whole 
power and sphere of the ethical life, separate 
from communion with God (the Light in Whom 
there is no darkness), still fighting against the 
Light, but evermore condemned (Jno. iii. 19), 
constantly overcome and consuming itself; but 
the Light, which is God (ch. i. 5), embraces 
whatever belongs to His Kingdom, and keeps be- 
lievers in communion with Himself (Diisterdieck). 
The Light is called τὸ ἀληθινόν, which is not only 
real (ἀληθὲς), but the true light answering to the 
real truth, embracing and effecting the real truth. 
(Ibid.) [Eternal, essential Light, of which 
earthly light is only a transitory image.—Hu- 
ther, Neander.—M.]. So Luke xvi. 11; 1 Thess. 
i. 9. Itis just the life of the Lord, wherein is 
that which shines, bursts and shines forth with 
ever increasing strength; this real Being is the 
Light, the true Light (John i. 4). In παράγεται 
we have first of all to preserve the Present form. 
The Vulgate renders falsely ‘‘tenebre transie- 
runt;” so do Luther, ‘‘is past,” Calvin [and E. V. 
“is past” —M.]. It is unnecessary to construe 
1 passively with Besser, Sander, Bengel, (tradu- 
citur, commutatur, tta ut tandem absorbeatur); it is 
Middle, like παράγει, 1 Cor. vii. 31 (so Oecume- 
nius, Wolf, Liicke, de Wette, Diisterdieck, Hu- 
ther): it is passing away, vanishing, disappear- 
ing. With this corresponds ἤδη φαίνει, said of the 
Light, it shineth, shineth already, not now (Lu- 
ther, E. V.); the darkness makes room for the 
light, the light begins already to break through. 
[Huther, who adds, ‘‘so that neither the darkness 
is entirely past, nor the light entirely estab- 
lished.”—M.]. The transition from the reign 
of darkness to that of the Light is thus indicated 
and referred tothe future, when the conflict thus 
begun will end in the full victory of the Light. 
Hence in the words 6 ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν John expresses 
not so much an encomium on his church, as a 
declaration of his joy in the continued working 
and the commencing and progressing victory of 
the Lord and His Kingdom. From this point of 
view the reading ὑμῖν only can be received as au- 
thentic, as bringing out the true sense of the pas- 
sage in an undiluted form, which would certainly 
be awakened by the reading ἡμῖν, and lessen the 
Apostle’s pure rejoicing over his church, as the 
work of Jesus Christ. [Rickli: ‘ John says this 
in relation to the ¢ime in which they live, and 
during which the great work of the Lord took a 
wondrously rapid course of development. The 
true Light, the Lord in His perfect revelation of 
Divine truth, shines already ;—already the great 
morning dawns for mankind. When the Lord 
returns, then will be the full day of God. This 
revelation .. . believers go to meet.—M. ]. 

Ver. 9. He that saith he isin the light 
and hateth his brother. 

For the form ef. v. 4, for the thought see ch. i. 
6,7. Φῶς here denotes neither Christ (Spener), 
nor the Church (Ebrard: ‘The Church of those 
in whom the fact ὅτε τὸ φῶς ἤδη φαίνει has become 
an ἀληθές}; for since τὸ φῶς, v. 8, denotes the 
holy, the sphere of the Divine life, no other sense 
can be admitted here. The Apostle regards as 
his brother particularly the believer in Christ, as 


γεγεννημένος ἐκ Tov Seov (ch. v. 1); the love of the 
brethren, as the children of a loved Father, rests 
on the love of God, who has regenerated them 
(ch. v.1; iii. 10.). Likewise in the Gospel (Jno. 
1. 16 ; xy. 12, sq.3 xiii. 84; xx. 17s xx. 13) ; 
St. Peter also gives φιλαδελφία in the same sense 
(1 Pet. i. 22, sq.), and actually distinguishes it 
from ἀγαπὴ which he takes in the sense of 
φιλανθρωπιά (2 Pet. i. 7), (Luther, common love). 
‘“‘Ipsa appellatio amoris causam continet (Bengel). 
Whether ἁδελφὸς denotes elsewhere an actual 
brother or a cousin, Jno. vii. 8, 5 [see my article 
** Are James the son of Alpheus and James the bro- 
ther of the Lord identical,” in Princeton Review, 
January, 1865—M.], or members of the same 
nationality, Acts xxiii. 1, or—6 πλησίον, ὁ ἕτερος, 
(Matth. xviii. 85; vii. 3; Luke vi. 41; Jas. iv. 
11), the context must always determine the sense, 
and the context here refers decidedly to Christian 
fellowship. Hence Grotius is wrong: ‘sive Ju- 
dexum, sive alienigenam; fratres omnes in Adamo 
sumus”’), as well as Calov and Lange [who give 
a similar exposition.—M.]. It is improper to 
take μισεῖν as ‘post habere, minus diligere, non co- 
lere”’ (Bretschneider); it means to hate; but it 
is not specified here to which degree of hatred he 
has come to whom reference is made; it is left 
undecided whether his hatred be germinating 
and initial, or mature and fully developed. Not 
even the faintest degree or colouring of hatred can 
be compatible with this ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι. That 
saying and this hating are so little in agreement, 
and this hating imports so much more than that 
saying, that John continues, saying, 

Is in the darkness until now—in sin, in 
the atmosphere of the sinful, until now, yet, at 
this hour, this very moment. But along with all 
this severity and profound earnestness which in- 
sists upon one thing or the other, runs the inti- 
mation of a hope of return. [Huther: ‘Like 
φῶς and σκοτία, μισεῖν τὸν ἀδελφόν and ἀγαπᾶν τὸν 
ἀδελφόν mutually exclude each other. They are 
two diametrically opposed biasses of life; a man’s 
doings belong either to the one or to the other; 
that which does not belong to the sphere of the 
one, appertains to that of the other. Each denial 
of love is hatred, each conquest of hatred is 
love.” Diisterdieck:—‘‘ Nothing can be more 
shallow and weak as compared with the ethics 
of the whole Scripture. All the truth, depth, 
and power of Christian ethics rest on the ‘aut 

. aut,’ so distinctly insisted on by St. John. 
On the one side is God, on the other the world: 
here is life, there is death; here love, there hate, 
i. 6. murder; there is no medium. In the space 
between, is nothing. Life may as yet be merely 
elementary and fragmentary. Love may as yet 
be weak and poor, but still, life in God and its 
necessary demonstration in love, is present really 
and truly, and the word of our Lord is true: 
‘He that is not against me is with me,”’ Luke ix. 
50; and on the other side, the life according to 
the flesh, the attachment to the world, and the 
necessary action of this selfishness by means of 
hatred, may be much hidden, may be craftily 
covered, and with splendid outer surface; but in 
the secret depth of the man, there where spring 
the real fountains of his moral life, is not God 
but the world; the man is yet in death, and can 
consequently love nothing but himself, and must 


CHAP. 


hate his brother; and then the other word of the 
Lord is true, ‘‘ He that is not for me is against me,” 
Luke ix. 28. For aman can only be either for or 
against Christ, and consequently can only have 
either love or hate towards his brother.”—M. ]. 


Ver. 10. He that loveth his brother, 
abideth in the light, and a stumbling- 
block is not in him.—Not only an antithesis 
to y. 9, but also a progression in the argument: 
μένει, for evry thing depends on the abiding 
which must be the result of being cf. v. 6. The 
sentiment is prepared in ἕως ἄρτι v. 9 by the fine 
allusion that hatred of the brother and being in 
the darkness, must be overcome, and that being 
in the light and in love must be maintained. 
Hence we cannot say with Ebrard: ‘The exercise 
of brotherly love is of itself a means of strength- 
ening and confirming the new life; from brotherly 
fellowship there flow for the new man refreshing 
and quickening streams of his faith.’’ But the 
love of the brother acts and moves within the 
sphere of lght, not without growth which 
strengthens itself there; the impelling power is 
that which evinces itself in brotherly love, faith 
in the Father, faith in the Only Begotten of the 
Father, who gives us the power to become the 
children of God. He that loves his brother ever 
grows more firmly rooted in holiness, the king- 
dom of light; growth takes place im brotherly 
love, but brotherly love does not produce it; He 
only produces it who produces fellowship with 
Himself and the love of the brother. John knows 
only aut—aut, hating or loving: ‘‘ubi non amor 
est, odium est, cor non est vacuum” (Bengel). The 
sentence, σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὖκ ἔστιν fully corres- 
ponds with v. 4; ἐν τούτῳ ἢ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν. + The 
comparison of these two verses facilitates the 
understanding of our passage. τὸ σκάνδαλον, or 6 
σκάνδαλος (Hesychius) is [the rendering of the 


LXX, ΜΙ] for Sivan or win properly 


ἐμπόδισμος, σκανδάληϑρον (τὸ ἐν ταῖς μυάγραις), προσ- 
κόμμα; hence βάλλειν, τιϑέναι σκάνδαλον. So 
λίϑον προσκόμματος, πέτρα σκανδάλου Rom. ix. 89 ; 
1 Ῥοί. 11. 7; cf. ts. viii. 14; xxviii. 16; Rom. xiv. 
13. It is always a stumbling against, an offence 
given, but it is left undefined whether it is given 
with or without guilt. Christ Himself, the Cru- 
cified One, is 1 Cor. i. 23: ᾿Τουδαίοις σκάνδαλον. 
The guilt of the σκάνδαλον may reside in him to 
whom it is given, who takes it, who is offended 
at it and falls. Here it is said: ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν. 
In him, who loves his brother and abides in the 
Light, in the holy, is not σκάνδαλον, is not that 
which offends, gives offence, causes himself or 
others to stumble and fall, such as envy, sus- 
picion, want of sympathy, harshness of judgment, 
pride—all σκάνδαλα to himself and also to others. 
“Qui fratrem odit, ipse sibi offendiculum est et in- 
currit in se wsum et in omnia intus et foris; qui 
amat expeditum iter habet. Bengel. This seems 
also to be the exposition of Dusterdieck, who 
says: ‘‘Occasion of stumbling and falling, the 
lust of the flesh is still extant in believers, but 
they are always sure of the virtue of the blood of 
Christ which hallows and increasingly removes 
every σκάνδαλον (ch. i. 7, sqq.). It is inadmis- 
sible to explain ἐν ait@=aiTw, as Grotius does 
(est metonymia et ἐν abundat; sensus: ille non im- 


II. 3-11. 55 


pingit. Ps. exix. 165), or de Wette (with him [for 
him] there is no offence), or Neander (there is 
no offence with him, he himself does not stumble) 
or to explain αὐτῷ with Liicke and Sander of the 
external sphere of life, because in the case of 
Christians σκάνδαλα lie in the world, not in him- 
self. What Vatablus says is only half true; 
nemini offendiculo est ; the same applies to Johann- 
sen: ‘he gives no offence; Ebrard: ‘there is 
nothing in them whereby they give offence to the 
brethren; and Huther, ‘‘there is nothing in him 
which becomes an offence to himself:” the refer- 
ence to others has also been given by Calov, Jach- 
mann, that to himself by Bede, Luther and Calvin. 
Ver. 11 concludes this section in antithesis to 
vy. 10, taking from that antithesis that which 
helps the further development of the thought. 
But he that hateth his brother is in the 
darkness and walketh in the darkness.— 
Here we find περιπατεῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, superadded 
to εἶναι ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ v. 10. The latter denotes the 
status or habitus (Sander), or affectus (Grotius) 
the disposition, state, the former the actus, ope- 
ration; so also de Wette and others. ‘Both the 
being (the assumption) and the doing (the conse- 
quence) of the unloving belong to the darkness; 
οἵ, Gal. v. 25” (Huther), ‘He that hateth his 
brother, both as to his person and as to his walk, 
belongs to the darkness, the sphere of the sin- 
ful” (Ebrard). Closely connected with this is: 
And he knoweth not where he goeth 
to—answering to the σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν, 
y. 10. The particle ποῦ, where, not whither, de- 
notes rest; ὑπάγειν however is not to go, but to 
go away to, to go to; the word describes a calm 
walking, not a mere moving to and fro, but a 
progressive moving towards an end or goal. So 
Jno. ili. 8; viii. 14; xii. 35; also Jno. vii. 35; 
ποῦ----πορεύεσθαι; ch. xx. 2, 18; ποῦ ἔθηκαν. The 
unloving man sees and knows not which way he 
is going; he walks with darkened eyes on a dark 
way. Luther (‘‘they fancy that they are going 
to rest and glory, and yet go to hell”); and Cy- 
prian (“1 nescius in gehennam, ignarus et cecus 
precipitatur in penam’’) look at the extreme goal, 
but we should not lose sight of the immediate 
consequences of a selfish and unloving being and 
walking. The matter is so very important, that 
the Apostle substantiates his statement, saying: 
Because the darkness hath blinded his 
eyes.—Tv6Aovr, to blind, to make blind must not 
be changed into ‘‘surrounding with darkness,” 
or diluted by a tanquam (Liicke and others). ‘The 
unlovying man himself is dark, and the darkness 
is in him, in his eyes, not only round about him. 
Jno. xii. 40; ef. Is. vi. 9, sq.; Matth. xiii. 14, sq.; 
and N. pp. Acts xxviii. 26, sq.; also 2 Cor. iv. 4. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Here we see quite plainly the different sides 
of the Christian life; γιγνώσκειν ϑεόν, τὰς ἐντολὰς 
αὐτοῦ τηρεῖν, TOV λόγον αὐτοῦ τηρεῖν, ἀλήθεια, ἀγάπη 
τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ εἶναι, μένειν, appear as correlates. 
The dogmatical and the ethical are in one ano- 
ther. The ethos is contained in the dogma, 
waiting to be delivered in the life; the ethos 
rests on the dogma as on a root; both are in- 
wardly related to each other, refer to each other, 
belong together, may be distinguished, but not 


56 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


suueneeet ἢ the one without the other falls to} son of Christ has added thereto in His personal 


ruin or runs to waste. Christian knowledge 
loses experience, clearness, sharpness of outline, 
assurance, and breadth, without a life of Chris- 
tian morality; Christian morality loses unity, 
depth, endurance, joyfulness, grace and beauty, 
if not founded on Christian knowledge. If it is 
affirmed concerning him who, while disobeying 
the commandments of God, still makes his boast 
of the knowledge of God, that the truth is not in 
him, and concerning him who loving his brother, 
abides in the light that offence is not in him 
(vv. iv. 10), it is evident that the ἀλήθεια and 
the σκάνδαλον cannot be made to agree, and that 
the former is also an immoral thing. 

2. Since John makes τὰς ἐντολὰς and τὸν λόγον 
τηρεῖν perfectly parallel, and regards the Law 
with its particular commandments, and the reve- 
lation of God in His word as a unit, and contem- 
plates the love of God as growing and maturing 
toward perfection by the obedient observance of 
the same, the presumption is that the same loving 
Will of God has revealed itself both in the Law 
and in the Gospel, and that man’s love of God lives 
on, ought and has to live on the wholesome food 
of both. But this decidedly excludes any and 
every meritoriousness of obedience and of good 
works; just as in the Gospel faith in the love of 
God does not constitute a merit, so in the Law 
obedience to the loving Will of God is not a me- 
rit. Obedience is simply a sign and mark of the 
Christian life begun on the foundation and in the 
efficiency of the reconciliation accomplished by 
Christ. Our only merit before God is Christ, and 
beside Him no man can have any merit before God. 

3. John does not in any way countenance the 
doctrine of the Council of Trent (Sess. VI., chap. 
16) that “the justified are able fully to satisfy 
(plene satisfacere) the divine law by means of 
works wrought in God” [Nihil ipsis justificatis 
amplius deesse credendum est, quo minus plene illis 
quidem operibus que in Deo sunt facta, divine legi pro 
hujus vite statu satisfecisse.—M.], because he does 
not speak of that which has an historical existence, 
but of that which is to become a reality; he refers 
not to actual reality, but to ideal reality. On 
this account the words of John rather sustain 
Luther’s paradox: ‘‘The righteous sins in every 
good work mortaliter, at least venialiter’’—or 
Schleiermacher’s translation of it: ‘*even in our 
good works there is something in consequence of 
which we stand in need of forgiveness for them.” 
Though [Roman] Catholicism debase the Law and 
blunt its requirements in order to exalt man, we 
are bound to exalt the Law, though man be de- 
based and humbled, since the case as put by John 
is and remains only ideal truth, Christ alone be- 
ing the exception, whom alone all are bound to 
follow. 

4, The unity and difference of the characteristics 
of the Old and New Testaments appears in one 
point, namely, the commandment of brotherly 
love. This commandment is valid in either 
sphere; it derives in both spheres its origin from 
God; it has the same meaning in both, and is one 
in both, the old [commandment] which remains. 
But in virtue of Christ’s example in His love of 
the brethren, it is more lucid, attractive, power- 
ful, comprehensive and pure in the New than in 
the Old. It is new only in that which the Per- 


love; He is the new, which has been superadded 
to the old commandment. 

5. The Perfect τετελείωται, v. 5, evidently de- 
notes no historical truth, since the historical is 
marked by ἡ σκοτία παράγεται, τὸ φῶς ἤδη 
φαίνει. Butthese Presents indicate the assurance 
of victory and the joyfulness of hope with which 
that Perfect is anticipated. It signifies: ‘the 
whole power and sphere of the ethicajglife, separate 
from communion with God, (the Τῆς in whom 
there is no darkness), still fighting against the 
Light, but evermore condemned, constantly 
overcome and consuming itself” (Diisterdieck), 
both in respect of the great totality of the world, 
and in respect of individual persons. 

6. The progress in eyil to perdition, and in 
good to the salvation of eternal life, is inward. 
The hidden life of the children of God has been 
commenced by the Forerunner; walking after 
Him, it grows in them, daily increasing in com- 
pleteness, so that salvation, pursuant to divine 
appointment, is the consequence of a holy life on 
earth. But disobedience and unlovingness exert 
a reaction on the unloving, which forms their 
inward being and operates their perdition, which, 
in its turn, is also the result of their conduct here 
on earth. ἢ 

7. As Christ is the principle of ethical life (v. 
6), and love the principle in Him, as in the λόγος 
and the Law, so the love of Him, of God and of 
the brethren, must be the principle of obedience 
and of ethical life. Ultimately every thing con- 
curs in brotherly love, which is the mark, while 
the love of God is the principle, the love of the 
loving God the fountain of all inward, Christian 
and godly life. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Examine thyself. 

1. What is to be investigated? Whether you 
know God; and the knowledge of God is not with- 
out fellowship with God. The question is not 
knowledge concerning and about God, not haying 
heard and‘learned certain truths relating to 
Him, but the being and abiding in Him (vv. ὃ, 5, 
6). You are intimate only with those between 
whom and yourself there is habitual intercourse. 
Otherwise you have only a more distant and su- 
perficial acquaintance, but never an intimate 
knowledge. 

2. Why it should be investigated? Without 
God you are in darkness, without Him you walk 
in darkness, you become more and more dark- 
ness yourself, you run to ruin, and perish at last 
in the darkness of condemnation; you reach the 
point that you hate, and are hated, hateful and 
abominable (vv. 9,11). But with and in God 
you are in the light, you walk in the light, and 
light and truth and love are in you, you become 
more and more light, love in truth grows more 
perfect, and all offence will be put away from 
you (vv. 4, 5, 11). 

8. How it should be investigated? Look after 
your obedience to the commandments of God (vv. 
3, 4), more especially after the old and yet new 
commandment of the love of the brethren (vv. 
7-11), and see whether you walk after the Lord 
Jesus (vy. 6). He that keeps the commandments 
of God in thought, in word and in deed, keeps 


CHAP. II. 3-11. 


57 


aD 


himself; he that observes the commandments of 
God, preserves himself. 

AveustTine:—Christ says not, learn of me to 
create the world, to work miracles, to raise the 
dead, but that I am meek and lowly in heart. 

Luruer :—The commandment of love is a short 
commandment and a long commandment, one 
commandment and many commandments, it is no 
commandment and all the commandments. Short 
and one it is of itself, and soon mastered as to its 
meaning; but long and manifold in point of 
practice, for it is the sum and chief of all com- 
mandments. And it isno commandment at all in 
respect of the works, for it hag no special work 
of its own by name; but it is all the command- 
ments, because the works of all the command- 
ments are and should be its works. The com- 
mandment of love therefore aprogates all the 
commandments and yet establishes all the com- 
mandments; and all this in order that we may 
know and learn thus much: no commandment 
and no work is to be kept and binding, but in as far 
as it is the demand of love. 

Spener:—There is a vast difference between 
living and dead knowledge; the one flows from 
the revelation of Jesus Christ (Jno. xiv. 21), from 
the Holy Ghost, and is therefore the operation of 
God; the other flows from reason, and consists 
in man’s imagination; the latter knows only 
what people are wont to say of God, the former 
ascertains the mind of God; the one is a know- 
ledge like that which I have of a man, concern- 
ing whom I have heard something, the other like 
that of one with whom I have had converse; the 
one is a feeble light, letting in only a beam into 
the understanding, the other is a heavenly light 
which fills and irradiates the whole soul, and in 
which we should walk.—It is a great consolation 
that God gives us ἃ sure test, whereby we may be 
assured of our faith and consequently of our par- 
ticipation in the reconciliation of Christ, a test 
moreover which we may use also in a state of 
temptation, when the sense of faith is wanting.— 
Saying that we know God, amounts to nothing. 
Simon the sorcerer gave out that himself was 
some great one, but was not (Acts viii. 9); 
some say that they are Jews, and are not (Rey. 
iii. 9); but confession demands first of all a be- 
lieving heart.—The imitation of Christ is not 
something that is left to our option, or only in- 
cumbent upon certain people desirous of attain- 
ing unto a peculiar perfection, but it is the uni- 
versal obligation of all those who are in Christ 
Jesus, and is therefore binding on the high 
and on the low, on the clergy and on the laity, on 
men and women, in every manner and walk of 
life. —Teachers should treat their hearers as breth- 
ren, and use the paternal power within such 
limits, as never to forget their brotherly equality 
(Philem. x. 16). No condition of life gives to a 
man the liberty to hate his brother; but in what- 
soever condition a man may be, he is never and in 
no wise permitted to hate his neighbour; and 
although he have occasionally to hurt him, as 
e. g., the authority of the land, which has to 
punish the wicked, yet must such condign pun- 
ishment flow from love, as in the case of others 
so in his case, and be administered with a com- 
passion that would, if it were able, rather with- 
hold the severeremedy, just as a physician, moved 
by love, yet because of urgent necessity, will 


amputate the arm or leg of a patient.—There 
is no lack of offences in the world ; let every one 
take care not to give offence, nor condemn others, 
but judge every thing in love. He that hateth 
his brother knows not the injury he inflicts upon 
himself, and into what misery he precipitates 
himself; for whereas he thinks that he loves him- 
self and for his own interest, honour or pleasure, 
hates his neighbour, even as selfishness is the 
cause of all hatred, he hates himself most of all, 
when he fancies that he is loving himself (John 
xii. 9). 

Lange:—The true followers of Christ have 
not a transient faith, but they are firm and 
steadfast like a branch in the vine, a bough in 
the tree, a house on its foundation. The duties 
of common love towards every man are these: 
1. Intercession for the promotion of his conver- 
sion; 2. friendly admonition and correction at 
convenient seasons; 3. the careful avoidance of 
whatever may deter him from the practice of 
good; 4. the diligent warding-off of his loss 
under all circumstances; 5. kindly demeanour in 
words, manner and works. The duties of parti- 
cular love towards believers are partly the same, 
partly those which are necessary to the mainte- 
nance of intimate brotherly converse and spiri- 
tual affinity. , 

SrarKke:—A piece of coin stands the test; 
lead betrays itself that it is not silver, and brass 
that it is not gold. Perhaps by sound? No, by 
the streak; and this is to keep the command- 
ments of Christ. Have a care, my soul. The 
loss of the fraud is thine own.—Faith worketh 
by love (Gal. v. 6); wherefore the faith, whence 
no good works do proceed, is only dead faith 
(Jas. ii. 17, 26).—The perfection of believers’ 
love of God consists in that it is honest, sincere, 
pure, undivided, upright, faithful and with- 
out hypocrisy, lacking neither a truly divine im- 
pulse nor holy ardour, neither true reverence of 
God, nor ardent zeal for and towards God, 
although as yet unable to take and hallow all the 
thoughts of the mind, or to present all its powers 
as an offering of love to God.—As we know that 
a branch which bears good fruit is truly in the 
vine (for were it otherwise how could it bear 
fruit?) so we may surely say of a man that does 
truly good works, that he is truly planted in 
Christ.—Come hither, ye that refuse to believe 
that it is necessary to be pious. Christ is your 
Forerunner! Do as He did! Look upon His 
example. Arbitrary choice and presumptuous 
conceit pave the road to hell.—It is a great com- 
fort that our Christian doctrine is sure and esta- 
blished, not liable to change and to be presented 
now in one way, now in another, but remains 
always the same, because God, who has wisdom 
and truth, is its Author, and needs not at any 
time to change that which He has given us once 
for all. Examine thyself,O man! who art thou? 
The child of God, or of the devil? Consider 
only whether thou lovest or hatest thy neigh- 
bour? If thou lovest him in deed and in truth, 
thou art in the light and in God’s; but if thou 
hatest Him and showest thy hatred either out- 
wardly in works, or concealest it inwardly in 
thy heart, and withdrawest thyself from Him, 
then thou hast a sign that thou art in darkness 
and the deyil’s. Tremble at thyself, and amend 
thy ways! 


58 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Hevusner:—To know Christ is to know, expe- 
rience and delight in Him as our Friend and Sa- 
viour, and to enjoy His grace and fellowship. 
The mark of it is the keeping of His command- 
ments, vital, active Christianity. Works are not 
the ground of justification, but a mark to our- 
selves, whether justifying faith is in us, and 
whether we are justified; because Christ when 
He gives Himself to us, never gives Himself half 
but entire; to whom He becomes justification, to 
them He also becomes sanctification. We may 
therefore conclude backwards, to whom He has 
not yet become sanctification, to them also He 
has not yet become justification —The assertion 
of justifying faith and want of holiness, fidelity 
and conscientiousness, constitutes a contradiction 
and makes the assertor a liar.—In those who 
keep the words of Christ, we may plainly see 
that they have really tasted the forgiving love of 
God, that it has carried captive their hearts and 
filled them with love to God.—Hatred, selfish- 
ness, is a state of darkness because the lightsome 
knowledge of God, of the love of Christ is still 
wanting, because it has not yet penetrated and 
illuminated the heart, because therefore the soul 
also is still in a dark, rent state, at discord with 
itself, without seeing the gracious countenance 
of God which renders us light, and, as it were, 
resplendent of countenance.—He knows not 1, 
how far this evil, unloving mind may carry him, 
and 2, what will be his end, what his reward,— 
exclusion from the kingdom of light. 

Neanver :—Believing aright in John’s sense, 
is a matter of life-—His commandments are only 
separate traits in which His life-forming word 
develops itself.—As genuine love can evidence 
itself only in the observance of Christ’s word, so 
there are different degrees of the manner how 
this love has more or less interpenetrated the 
life of men.—He Himself is in His command- 
ments, and they also are only separate parts of 
His self-revelation.—The life of every believer 
should be only a peculiar representation of the 
image of Christ, the original of the new and glori- 
fied humanity.—Either love or hatred of the bre- 
thren; love which is ready for any sacrifice, or 
selfishness that may also pass into hatred; even as 
Christ indicates only the two fundamental biasses: 
to serve God or the world. 

Besser:—Would I know whether I know God, 
I must not examine my knowledge but my walk ; 
and would I know whether thou knowest God, 
I do not ask that which thy mouth may have to 
say of Him, but that which thy life does testify 
of Him.—Just in the sense of John we read in 
the Epistle to Diognetus: There is neither life 
without knowledge, nor right knowledge without 
the true life.—It is characteristic of love that it 
would do nothing to grieve but every thing to 
please the Beloved, surrendering its will and 
weal, its honour and life to the Beloved; His 
pleasure is its pleasure; what displeases Him, it 
hates.—The motto of St. Francis was: “Zantum 
quisque scit, quantum operatur.’’-—Cursed be all 
science that cannot stand the test of the com- 
mandments of Jesus Christ !--This indisputable 
ought (v. 6), is at the same time a blessed may to 
John and to all who have John’s mind [That is, 
the duty is to them a blessed privilege, which 
they receive with grateful hearts.—M. ].—When 
the pagans looked with amazement on the love 


of the early Christians, and exclaimed: ‘See 
how these Christians love one another, and are 
ready to die for one another,” when the mark 
of Christians was described in the words: ‘‘ They 
love each other even before they know each other,” 
then there shone the resplendent light before 
which darkness recedes. Would that this day, 
when it comprises already a much longer period 
of light, there could be found no Christian 
Church, in whose new walk that is not truth and 
reality which John writes to the Christians as an 
old commandment. 

[Secker:—IJf we keep His commandments, v. 8. 
Whosoever doth so,though imperfectly, yet sin- 
cerely and humbly, hath nothing to fear. Who- 
soever doth not, hath nothing to hope. Strong 
feelings of joyful assurance may be given to the 
pious from above as a present reward; and 
strong feelings of vain presumption may lead on 
the wicked, secure and triumphant, to their final 
destruction. Very reasonable terrors from con- 
sciousness of their guilt, may torment the bad 
beforehand; and very unreasonable ones, from 
constitution or the suggestions of Satan, may as- 
sault the good. Therefore we are to judge of our 
condition by none of these things; but by the 
Scripture rule, fairly interpreted: ‘Little. chil- 
dren, let no man deceive you: he that doeth 
righteousness is righteous; he that committeth 
sin is of the devil” 1 Jno. iii. 7, 8.—M.]. 

[Barrow :—(v. 5). If a man perform any good 
work not out of the love to God, but from any 
other principle or any other design (to please 
himself or others, to get honour or gain thereby) 
how can it be acceptable to God, to Whom it hath 
not any due regard? And what action hath it 
for its principle, or its ingredient, becomes sanc- 
tified thereby, in great measure pleasing and ac- 
ceptable to God; such is the work and value 
thereof. It is also the great commandment for 
efficacy and influence, being naturally produc- 
tive of obedience to all other commandments; 
especially of the most genuine and sincere obe- 
dience; no other principle being in force and 
activity comparable thereto; fear may drive toa 
compliance with some, and hope may draw to an 
observance of others; but it is love, that with a 
kind of willing constraint and kindly violence 
carries on cheerfully, vigorously and swiftly, to 
the performance of all God’s commandments, 

(v. 6): ‘To abide in Christ, to be in Christ, to 
put on Christ and reciprocally Christ’s being in 
us, living, dwelling, being formed in us, and the like 
expressions, occurring in Holy Scripture, do not 
denote any physical inherence, or essential con- 
junction between Christ and us, such as those 
who affect unintelligible mysteries, rather than 
plain sense, would conceit; but only that mutual 
relation accruing from our profession of being 
Christ’s disciples, our being inserted into His 
body, the Church, being governed by His laws, 
partaking of His grace, with all the privileges of 
the Gospel, relying upon His promises, and 
hoping for eternal salvation from Him. By 
virtue of which relation we may be said, in a 
mystical or moral manner, to be united to Him, 
deriving strength and sustenance from Him, as 
the members from the head, the branches from 
the tree, the other parts of the building from the 
foundation, by which similitudes this mysterious 
union is usually expressed in Scripture; in 


CHAP. II. 12-17. 


59 


eee 


effect, briefly, to be in Christ, or to abide in Christ 
implieth no more, but our being truly in faith 
and practice Christians; so that the meaning of 
St. John’s words seemeth plainly and simply to 
be this. Whosoever pretends to be a Christian, 
that. is, to believe the doctrine and embrace the 
discipline of Christ, ought to walk, that is, is 
obliged to order the whole course of his life and 
actions, as Christ walked, that is, as Christ lived 
and conversed in the world; or, it is the duty 
of every one professing Christianity to conform 
his life to the pattern of Christ’s life, to follow 
His example, to imitate His practice.—M. ]. 

Horne:—(v. 6). No one can fail to see that the 
life of Christ was designed as a pattern for His 
followers, who considers how admirably it is 
calculated for that purpose. We meet not here 
with legendary tales of romantic austerities, ec- 
stasies and abstractions, tending only to amaze 
and embarrass the consciences of men with un- 
profitable and unnecessary scruples, but we be- 
hold a life, which though holy and without spot 
or blemish from beginning to end, was conducted 
after the manner of men, and so as to be imita- 
ble by them; being passed into the midst of 
civil society, and in the exercise of all those 
lovely. graces, by which that is preserved and 
improved, sweetened and sanctified. And we 
should find it the best compendium of morality, 
the most perfect and unerring rule whereby to 
direct ourselves in all cases, if we would only ask 
our own hearts, before we enter upon an action, 
how the blessed Jesus would behave in our cir- 
cumstances. A conscience, but moderately in- 
formed from the Gospel, would seldom perhaps 
give a wrong determination.—M. ]. 

[Burxirr:—(v. 7). The commandment of love 
might be called an old commandment, as being a 
branch of the law of nature, and a known pre- 
cept of the Jewish religion: although in other 
respects it might be called a new commandment, 
because urged from a new motive, and enforced 
by a new example.—M. ]. 

[CuarKkE:—There is a saying in Synopsis, 
Sohar, p. 94, n. 51, that may cast some light on 
this passage: ‘‘That way in which the just have 
walked, although it be old, yet may be said to be 
new in the love of the righteous.”’ 

(v. 11). Love prevents him from giving any 
offence to his neigbour, and love prevents him 
from receiving any from his neighbor, because it 
leads him to put the best construction on every 
thing. Besides, as he walks in the light, he sees 
the stumbling-blocks that are in the way, and 
avoids them; every part of his path being illu- 
minated. Many fall into sin because they do 
not see the snares that are in their way; and they 
do not see the snares because they either have 
not received, or do not abide in the light.—M. ]. 

[Pyze:—Wherefore it is an effect of the most 
malicious prejudice and stuvid ignorance of plain 


truth, for any man to profess himself a true dis- 
ciple of Christ, while he harbours revengeful 
thoughts and uncharitable principles towards 
other men. On the contrary, a kind behaviour 
and tender disposition towards all our brethren 
is one of the best instances of Christian perfec- 
tion, and secures us from all the scandal and 
mischievous effects of a censorious and perse- 
cuting temper.—M. ]. 

[Neanver:—(v. 8). Thus, too, John contem- 
plates Christ as Himself the true light, holding 
the same relation to the spiritual as the sun to 
the natural life. What he here says then is this: 
With those who have been so long attached to 
Christianity, the darkness proceeding from their 
former heathen state is passing away, and the 
true light is now breaking. Now, he says,— 
meaning their present in contrast with their for- 
mer state of heathenism, or while still affected 
by its remaining influence. The light derived 
from Christ, the true Light, was already banish- 
ing the former darkness—they were becoming 
constantly more and more enlightened. So Paul 
says to his readers, Rom. xiii. 11 sqq., that now 
their salvation is nearer than when they believed, 
that the end of the night approaches, the day of 
the Lord draws near. It is, therefore, true, both 
with reference to Christ, the true Light which 
has dawned upon their souls, and with reference 
to believers who have received this light and 
been illuminated thereby, that this fundamental 
law of Christianity now verifies its character as 
the new command. To those who live in the 


light of Christ, who have become at home in the 


new world of Christianity, the old commandment 
now, in contrast with the former state of dark- 
ness, presents itself in new glory as the new com- 
mand. In new power must it be revealed to 
their hearts, that BROTHERLY LOVE constitutes 
the essence of the Christian life, is the essential 
mark of fellowship with Christ.—M. ]. 

[ WorpswortH:—Christian Prazis is the test of 
Christian Gnosis.—Tyue Christians are the genu- 
ine Gnostics.—The δ 1... pretended to have 
light, to have special @lwmination; but their light 
is a false light, it is the light of wandering stars, 
to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness ”’ 
(on v. 8).—M.]. 

Sermons: 

[ Ver, 4. Smatripa@x, ΒΡ.: Disobedience to the 
commandments of God, a mark of unbelief. 
Sermons, 199. 

Ver. 5. Dwieut, T.: His example. Theolo- 
gy, Il. 359. 

Ver. 6. Fravet, Joun: Imitation of Christ in 
holiness. 2 Serm. Works II. 299. 

Barrow, Is.: Abiding in Christ to be demon- 
strated by walking in Christ. Serm. Works 
II. 362. 

Ver. 8. Atrorp, H.: The shining light. Hul- 
sean Lecture, 1842. 1.—M.]. 


6. Consolatory warning against the love of the world. 


CuapTer 2, 12—17. 


12 ‘I write unto 


you, little children, because your sins are! forgiven you for his name’s 


13 sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the begin- 


60 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


ning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.2 I 


14 write® unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. 


I have written 


unto you, fathers, because ye have known him‘ ¢hat is from the beginning. I have 
written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in 


15 you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. 


that are in the world.® 


Love not the world, neither the things 


If any man love the world, the love of the Father® is not in 


16 him. For’ all that s in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and 
17 the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth 
away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever. 


Verse 12. Π ἀφέωνται, Perf, Pass. formed after the Perfect Active ἀ φέω κα, here and Matth. ix. 2.5; Mark ii.5; 
Luke vy. 20, 23; vii. 47; Syriac=remissa sug, ““ HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN YOU” more correct than E. V. “are 


forgiven you.”—M.] 
[3 Cod. Sin. reads τὸ πον ηρόν.---Μ.7 


Verse 13. ϑέγραψα, A. B. Ο., Cod. Sin. The reading γράφω is without critical authority, and opposed to the 


ructure of this series of sentences. 


Verse 14. 476 am’ ἀρχῆς in B., which might allude to ch. i. 1, is evidently a slip of the pen, since the same Codex 


reads τὸν in vy. 13. 


Verse 15. [μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμ ῳ-εηοῦ the things in the world, more correct than “the things that are in the 


world” ¥. V.—M. 


“τοῦ πατρὸς, B.[G. K.] Cod. Sin.; the best verss. Fathers [Oec. Theophyl.—M.}. The reading @ εοῦ 
A. C. must yield the place to the former authorities, and to the context y. 16. 


Verse 16. [7 67 c—because, so German.—M.] 


Verse 17. [ϑαὐτοῦ after émc@upia, although wanting in A. and cancelled by Griesbach, is the true reading. The 
difficulty readily accounts for the omission.—M]. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


The structure of vv. 12-14.—The six members 
are evidently divided into two triads: the thrice 
repeated Present γράφω, and the thrice-repeated 
Aorist ἔγραψα, as well as the address τεκνία, 
πατέρες, νεανίσκοι joined to the Present, and 
παιδία, πατέρες, νεανίσκοι joined to the Aorist, 
clearly intimate as much. The sentences sub- 
joined by ὅτε exhibit the same correspondency, 
and confirm this arrangement. This has to be 
proved by the exegesis. 

The addresses, vv. 12-14. Texvia must be taken 
here in the same sense as in the other passages 
of the Epistle where it occurs, ch. ii. 1, 28: iii. 
18; iv. 4; v. 21. It applies to all readers, the 
whole Church, and should not be made to desig- 
nate a particular age (as has been done by Eras- 
mus, Socinus, J. Lange), a peculiarly near 
relation to the author. The diminutive form is 
chosen for the sake of intimacy and cordiality, 
and is indicative of the paternal relation and ad- 
vanced age of the Apostle. The addition μον, ch. 
ii. 1, may have a still more intimate sound, but 
there is no want of intimacy here or in ch. iii. 
18; iv. 4; v. 21, although μου is wanting. It is 
altogether parallel to ἀγαπητοί, ch. ii. 7; iii. 2, 
Alseiv. 1, 7, Lior 6, «ται ταν, chia, 18> ΤΠ], “7; 
(var lect.). Although παιδία is thus rarely used, 
nevertheless itis used, and, if we take it here— 
texvia, it is used thrice. Hence there is no rea- 
fon whatsoever why παιδία, v. 13, should not be 
applied to the whole Church, but, like πατέρες 
and νεανίσκοι, be understood to designate a par- 
ticular age (with Calvin, Luther, Caloy, Sander, 
Neander, Besser, Ebrard, al.), and to disturb the 
harmony of the structure of this group of sen- 
tences. Particularly as the comprehensive παιδία, 
little children, offered a more natural sequence to 
πατέρες and νεανίσκοι than τεκνία, little sons. The 
order in which rexvia and παιδία occur, forbids 
their being referred to a particular age, for 
either νεανίσκοι, πατέρες would have to follow, or 
πατέρες, νεανίσκοι to go before. Hence rexvia and 
παιδία must be construed as denoting the general 
address, and πατέρες and νεανίσκοι the specializa- 
tion of church-members, πατέρες describing those 


of maturer years (πρεσβύτεροι, γέροντες, heads of 
families, the more experienced), and νεανίσκοι 
those younger in years. This is the view of 
most commentators. Augustine’s view, accord- 
ing to which the Apostle refers throughout to 
the same persons, only designating them by dif- 
ferent names from different points of view, is 
consequently untenable; he says: ‘‘filioli, guia 
baptismo neonati sunt, paires, guia Christum, patrem 
et antiquum dierum agnoscunt, adolescentes, gut, 
fortes sunt et validi;’’ nor must we refer, with a 
Lapide, the different addresses to a ‘‘triplicem 
Christianorum in virtute gradum ; pueri enim repre- 
sentanti incipientes et neophytos; juvenes proficientes, 
senes perfectos.” Similar explanations are given 
by Clement, Oecumen., Grotius (with reference 
to 1 Cor. xiii. 11, 12; Heb. v. 13; Eph. iv. 13, 
14) and others. 

The tenses of the otherwise clear verb, γράφω 
and ἔγραψα, vy. 12-14, present great difficulties. 
It is clear that ὅτε does not denote the substance 
of his present or former writing. John writes 
not that their sins are forgiven, and that they 
have known the Father, ‘hat they have known 
Him that is from the beginning, that they have 
overcome the wicked one, that they are strong, 
that the word of God abideth in them, all this he 
does not write, and has not written to his church, 
but other things. Hence ὅτε can only be taken 
as a causative particle; it denotes the reason and 
cause of his writing, and must be rendered ‘‘dbe- 
cause.” It is self-evident that ὅτε, if translated 
‘*because”’ once, must be translated thus through- 
out, in all the six consecutive places where it oc- 
curs, and not be rendered with Luther the first, 
fifth and sixth time ‘‘¢hat,” and the second, third 
and fourth time ‘ for” (=because).— Socinus, 
Schott, Sander, Neander translate ‘‘that;” Cal- 
vin, Beza, Liicke, de Wette, Huther, Diisterdieck, 
al. ‘‘because;” while Erdmann gives to ὅτε a de- 
clarative meaning in the first three sentences, 
without determining whether it should be con- 
strued objectively and causatively in the last 
three sentences. J write—simply defines the 
act of writing: 7 write just now what I write, be- 
cause—. The object is the Zpistle, even this 
Epistle. Now, if John, after this thrice-repeated 
γράφω signifying this Epistle, says again three 


CHAP. IL. 12=17. 


61 


Ans sas Se ee eee 


times ἔγραψα, the reference cannot be to the 
Epistle, neither to the preceding exhortations 
(Grotius), nor to the first chapter (Calov), neither 
in respect of the thrice-repeated ἔγραψα to ch. i. 
5-7; i. 8-ii. 2, 83-11 and γράφω to ch. ii. 15-17; 
18-27; ii. 28—iii. 22 (Rickli and Liicke), nor so 
that the reference is general, the Aorist denoting 
that part of the Epistle which is already written, 
the Present the part as yet unwritten, but in 
process of development [the very act of writing, 
ἢ. 6,, the Epistle itself.—M.] (so de Wette, 
Briickner, Huther) nor can the reference be to 
vy. 12, 18, as if the apostle had said “1 write, 
and I have written, it is a settled thing” (J. 
Lange, Neander, Sander, Ewald, Heubner, Ben- 
gel [‘‘innuit commonitionem firmissimam’’]), nor 
are Beza and Diisterdieck any more satisfactory, 
who suppose the Present to indicate the present 
stand-point of the Apostle, his present act of 
writing, and the Aorist to describe the stand- 
point of the readers after they had received the 
Epistle, when, of course, it was written ;—all 
these explanations are so many attempts whose 
very forced and artificial character shows them 
to be mere make-shifts, which, even in their more 
simple forms, do not remove the appearance of 
trifling, and explain as little the position of the 
Present relating to what follows before the 
Aorist relating to what goes before, as that the 
author by this change of tense tears asunder that 
which he has written from that which he is about 
to write, both of which belong together as one. 
If we are thus constrained to think of another 
writing, we must not think of a previous Epistle 
(Michaelis), but of the Gospel (Socinus, Lange, 
Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ebrard, Hoffmann), 
to which this Epistle is not only nearly related 
in the exordium, but also in its very kernel and 
essence. Cf. Introduction, 38,8. The conscious- 
ness of the importance of the Gospel he had 
written, fully justifies in the Epistle the threefold 
repetition of ἔγραψα in consideration of the rea- 
Sons relating to different groups of persons in 
the Church, and warranting such repetition; nor 
can it be thought singular that he had no other 
reasons (ὅτι) for having written the Gospel than 
those for writing the Epistle. Nor may an ob- 
jection be raised to the Apostle’s not specifying 
the object either of ἔγραψα or γράφω, and his not 


describing the writing to which he refers, be- 
cause both the Gospel and the Epistle were in 
the hands of the readers, and enabled them both 
to find the necessary explanation, and to prevent 
possible misunderstanding. [The peculiarly in- 
volved statement of Braune renders it desirable 
to supply the English reader with a more lucid 
account of the views he advocates. Tpddw, de- 
notes the present act of writing, not only the 
particular sentence in which that word occurs, 
but the present Epistle; ἔγραψα, a writing al- 
ready written, finished and complete in the hands 
of the readers of the Epistle, to which they might 
refer; and that writing was the Gospel, which 
would clear up every doubt, remove every diffi- 
culty, and furnish a commentary on the state- 
ments and exhortations contained in the Epistle. 
It must be confessed that this is, on the whole, 
the most simple and satisfactory solution of a 
very knotty question, although that advocated by 
de Wette, Briickner and Huther is not so trifling 
as Braune, echoing the words of Ebrard, asserts, 
Said authors explain ἔγραψα of that part of the 
Epistle which the Apostle had already written, 
and γράφω of the immediate act of writing, that 
is, to the Epistle in general; in their view it is 
proper that John should begin with γράφω while 
his reference to the part already written by 
ἔγραψα may be explained by the fact that that 
part (especially ch. 1. 5—ii, 11) contains the 
fundamental principles of the subsequent exhor- 
tations and developments. Personally we pre- 
fer the view of Braune, but many readers will, 
doubtless, incline to that set forth by Huther and 
others.—Ebrard gives the following synopsis of 
the two triads: 


TRIAD THE FIRST. TRIAD THE SECOND. 


γράφω. ἔγραψα. 
1. rexviaall readers. 1. Children (in point of 
age). 
2. Fathers. 2. Fathers. 


8. Young men. 3. Young men. 

and Wordsworth (who, however, does not discuss 
the details of his arrangement, and carries the 
series down to y. 28) makes a series of seven, 
closed by an eighth, the octave of the first, with a 
symbolical reference to the number seven and eight. 
His arrangement is this: 


γράφω ὑμῖν, τεκνία, v. 12. 


γράφω ὑμῖν, πατέρες, v. 18. 
γράφω ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, v. 18. 
ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, παιδία, v. 18. 


ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ν. 14. 
ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, vy. 15. 
παιδία, ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστί, vy. 18. 


καὶ νῦν, τεκνία, μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ, v. 28. 


This arrangement is more curious than valuable 
or logical, and merely added to complete the ca- 
talogue of representative views begun above. M.]. 

The reasons of the Apostle’s writing vy. 12-14. 

First series, vv. 12, 186. 

Ver. 12. I write unto you, little chil- 
dren, because your sins have been for- 
given you.—The Perfect ἀφέωνται (See Winer, 
Grammar, 2 14, 8, p. 98, on the form of éhis 
word) points to the forgiveness of sins, mentioned 
ch. i. 8, sqq.; ii. 1, 2, asa completed fact, which, 


as a ground whereon they stand, as a sphere 
wherein they move, as a benefit they have re- 
ceived, has and is to have on them and the rest 
of their life a lasting effect and an efficient 
power. [The forgiveness of sins ig the ground of 
the Christian life—M.]. Vulg., Augustine and 
Calvin render falsely “remittuntur,” so Luther, 
‘“‘are forgiven you,” [and E. V.—M.] For 
His name’s sake. The reference is not to 
Him who forgives sins, God the Father, but to 
Him, for@vhose sake the Father forgives; that is 


62 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOIN. 


Christ; for διὰ with the Accusative is not per, 
through (instrumental), but propter, on account of, 
for the sake of, indicating the ground of the for- 
giveness of sins, and here, where the cordiality of 
the address (little children), and the direct appli- 
cation to the persons addressed (I write unto 
you, your sins have been forgiven you), are to be 
brought out, it denotes the objective ground, 
rendered suljective: since His name is with you, 
in you and among you; His name is He Himself 
and what He is, but revealed and known, be- 
lieved and confessed ; hence=since ye have be- 
lieved on Him, confess and invoke Him, indivi- 
dually and collectively, and since He has mani- 
fested Himself and may yet further manifest 
Himself as ἱλασμὸς, παράκλητος; consequently 
for Christ’s sake in you. Thus we might combine 
with Neander the explanation of Diisterdieck, 
who insists with the majority of commentators on 
the objective ground of the forgiveness of sins, 
and that of Luther, who understands the sub- 
jective ground. [Neander says: ‘‘He comforts 
them with the assurance of sins forgiven through 
the mediation of Christ. For the name of Christ 
are their sins forgiven; that is, for the sake of 
what Christ is as the Son of God and the Son of 
Man, the divine-human Redeemer—it being as 
such thatthey invoke Him as their Mediator.”— 
M.]. 

tes. 13a. I write unto you, fathers, be- 
cause ye have known him that is from 
the beginning.—'0 ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, according to ch. 
i. 1 and the context, can only signify Christ, 
with reference to His eternal, Divine Nature; for 
the ἀρχή reaches beyond the beginning of time 
and of the world, into God’s eternal life, and 
must not be weakened into ‘‘initiwm novi federis 
et evangelii patefacti’’ (Socinus). Grotius and a 
Lapide, without all contextual sanction, explain 
“‘novistis Deum, qui Senex dierum,” Dan. vii. 9; 
xiii. 22. “Eyvéxare consequently denotes only 
the more profound understanding of the nature 
and eternal glory of Christ, spiritual knowledge, 
and not personal acquaintance, not even on the 
part of some (Bengel: ‘ vivebant patres eo tempore, 
quo Christus in terris fuerat conspiciendus, et eorum 
nonnulli eum et facie et fide, omnes fide cognorant’’) 
so the ἐγνώκατε τὸν πατέρα, Υ. 18. must on no ac- 
count be explained of personal acquaintance. 
Nor does this exhortation warrant the idea that 
the Fathers, the aged, love to hear and talk of 
old things, and that to them, in particular, know- 
ledge ought to belong. (The Greek Fathers, 
Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Neander). 
But more profound knowledge in general, and 
knowledge of Jesus Christ, His Person and work 
in particular, is peculiarly suited to the calmness 
and experience of old age. 

Ver. 15d. I write unto you, young men, 
because ye have overcome the wicked 
one.—While young men are exposed to the 
power of temptation in respect of the world, both 
within and without, they have also fresh vigor 
and courage to fight against and overcome the 
wicked one, τὸν πονηρόν, the devil, who is thus 
designated in the N. T. in general (Matth. xiii. 
19, οἵ. xxviii, 38, sq.; Eph. vi. 16); and in this 
Epistle in particular (ch. iii. 12; v. 18 sq.) 
Carpzov: ‘‘ Viris fortibus et robustis tribuitur supra 
fortissimum et robustissimum victoria.” “But we 


must not narrow the idea with Bengel, who says: 
‘‘Insigne quoddam specimen virtutis a juvenibus, qui- 
bus scribit, exhibitum, cujusmodi erat constantia con- 
fessionis in persecutione Domitiani, itemque reditus 
Juvenis illius, quem apostolus summa mansuetudine 
a lactrocinio ad penitentiam reduxit, suavissime de- 
scriptus a Clemente Al. lib. quis dives salv. c. 42, ab. 
Eusebio H. E., lib. 3, cap. 20 et a Chrysostomo, 
Parzen. 1ad Theodorum lapsum, cap. 11. We may 
think’ of it, but take it in the widest reach. That 
which John says to all, the rexviovc, that their sins 
have been forgiven, applies indeed to all, and it 
does not apply exclusively to the fathers, that 
they have known the Lord, or exclusively to the 
young men, that they have overcome the wicked 
one; for it may be that there are fathers who 
have just gained the victory, and young men 
who have acquired profound knowledge; but be- 
sides the general truth of the forgiveness of sins, 
those particular affirmations are admirably dis- 
tributed among the different classes, and only 
possible and real on the condition of that general 
declaration. ‘Christian life-truth is essentially 
one; in whichever direction its riches may be 
developed, or to whicheyer relations it may be 
applied, all these different exhortations and in- 
structions are always of one casting, resting on 
one foundation, and animated by one spirit” 
Diisterdieck). But John has a particular word, 
a word of peculiar application for the whole 
Church, as well as for the separate groups and 
individuals. 

Second series, v. 18c—v. 14. 

Ver. 138c.—I have written unto you, little 
sons, because ye have known the Father. 
To know the Father, that is, to know God as 
our Father, to cast deeper looks into the peace- 
thoughts of His heart concerning us, into the 
holy Love which is His Being, is possible only 
in the more intimate converse with Him which 
He opens in the forgiveness of our sins and our 
reconciliation. The child, with its child-like 
ways and mind, with its humility, attachment, 
diligence, teachableness and receptivity, is nearer 
to God than an adult. Here also apply the 
words, ‘‘Become as little children’? Matth. xviii. 3. 
It is easy to see that we have here the parallel of 
the clause, ‘‘ Because your sins have been for- 
given you;” adoption and forgiveness of sins in- 
terpenetrate each other, and more than mere 
correlates. He now writes to the fathers pre- 
cisely the same thing as before: 

Ver. 14. I have written unto you, fath- 
ers, because ye have known Him that is 
from the beginning.—His object is not to 
write something else; for he has rightly divided 
the word. 

I have written unto you, young men, 
because ye are strong, and the word 
of God abideth in you, and ye have 
|overcome the wicked one.—‘‘Alii juvenes 
corpore, vos fide.” (Bengel), Matth. xii. 29; Luke 
xi. 21, sq.; Heb. xi. 84. It is the strength of 
the Spirit for the combat and victory, the strength 
_of their own spirit, and derived from the Spirit of 
God, given from above, through and with the 
adoption and the forgiveness of sins. The ἀγγελία 
(ch. i. δ). with the ἀλήθεια ch. i. 6, 8; ii. 4), in 
the word of God, (ch. i. 10; ii. 2. 5. 7), creates 
and moves this vital strength and vital courage 


CHAP II. 12-17. 


63 


for the combat. Hence ἰσχυροί ἐστε is immedi- 
ately followed by καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει. 
Ὁ λόγος τοῦ ϑεοῖ, therefore, does not denote 
Christ, although He is the centre and star of that 
word. The word of God, with its eternal power, 
must not only be brought to them, but it must 
have entered into them and remain in them; then 
it happens: καὶ νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν. The 
strength is grounded on the word of God, which 
abides in them (μένει), and in virtue off this 
strength they have overcome the devil [the 
thought belongs to Huther—M.]; the decisive 
battle, of course, has been fought by Jesus Christ, 
but His people ought to follow up His victory by 
continuous warfare, and gain further triumphs 
in their heart and sphere of life, cf. Jno. xvi. 33. 
A retrospective view of the preceding verses, as- 
signing the reasons for the Apostle’s writing and 
having written, characterizes the readers as pos- 
sessing not asmall degree of Christian knowledge 
and ability, and the writings in question as taking 
for granted such.a degree of Christian culture. 
While we may therefore think of the Epistle and 
the Gospel, we cannot say with Ebrard that the 
Gospel is wholesome and pleasant food for the 
little ones (παιδία), but that the Epistle can be un- 
derstood by adults only. Now has been laid 
down an important and sure foundation for the 
subsequent warnings and exhortations (Luther, 
8. Schmid, Episcopius, Bengel, Liicke, de Wette, 
Diisterdieck, al.): You have received and ac- 
quired so much, and succeeded so well, that you 
ought to progress, and not to retrograde! You 
stand in life-fellowship with God—do not dis- 
solve it! 

The warning. VER. 15a. Love not the 
world, neither the things in the world. 
The correct exposition of the whole depends on 
the meaning of ὁ κόσμος, which signifies accord- 
ing to Suidas: εὐπρέπειαν, τὸ πᾶν, τάξιν, τὸ πλῆθος, 
or according to Hesychius: κάλλος and then the 
beautiful fabric of the material universe. ‘Quem 
κόσμον Greci nomine ornamenti appellaverunt, eum 
nos ὦ perfecta absolutaque elegantia mundum” 
(Plinius. H. NV. 2,3). The LXX do not apply the 
word κόσμος, strictly taken, tothe universe. In the 
New Testament we find it used in all these 
senses, 1 Pet. i. 83=evmpérera, τάξις: Acts xvii. 
24; Jno. xxi. 25; xvii.5; Matth. xxiv. 21; Rev. 
xii. 8; xvii. 8==76 πᾶν, and especially by John in 
the Gospel ch. 1.9; xi. 9; xii. 19; xviii. 36; 
1 Jno. ii. 2; iv. 1. 3. 9. 14.=the creation of the 
earth, especially of the world of man (Diister- 
dieck)—r6 πλήθος. Now the difference between 
οὗτος ὁ Kéouoc—=Ta κάτω and τὰ bvw (Jno. viii. 23), 
which is at the same time the opposite of both, 
makes κόσμος to denote the whole kingdom of sin 
and death, inimical to God, under Satan its 
prince, and more particularly the world of man 
as fallen away and estranged from God (Jno. xii. 
31; xiv. 80; xvi. 11; 1 Jno. iv. 4; v.19; 2 Cor. 
iv. 4; Eph. vi. 11, sq.). But all this without the 
faintest trace of dualism. For the κόσμος, as ori- 
ginally created by God, was very good (ef. Gen. 
i, 81, with Jno. i. 3, 10), but became evil and is 
the object of redeeming love (Jno. iii. 16; 1 Jno. 
ii. 2; iv. 14), so that the children of the world 
become the children of God in their faith in 
Christ and His Word (Jno. i. 12; xii. 45-50) ; 
there ee man who is not first born flesh of the 

4 


flesh, and yet born spirit of the spirit may not 
and should not become the child of God (Jno. iii. 
6; 1 Jno. iii. 9, 14),—Now the sum-total of this 
earthly kingdom of evil is alternately applied in 
a real sense to the earthly sphere in general, and 
in a personal sense to the world of man, sinful, 
and abiding in sin; and these two conceptions 
frequently and easily play the one into the other. 
The present passage must be interpreted by the 
usus loguendi current in the N. T., and we must 
‘lay down the rule that κόσμος bears the same 
meaning in all the three verses, so intimately 
connected together” (Diisterdieck). We cannot 
say with a Lapide ‘omnibus hisce modis” (i. ὁ. 
three different meanings: “1. homines mundani, in 
his proprie est concupiscentia ; 2. orbis sublunaris, in 
hoe mundo proprie et formaliter non est concupis- 
centia ; sed in eo est concupiscentia materialis, i. e. 
objectum concupiscibile: 3. ipsa mundana vita vel 
concupiscentia in genere) : omnibus hisce modis mun- 
dus hie accipi potest et Johannes nune ad unum, 
nune ad alterum respicit ; ludit enim in voce mun- 
dus.” Points of support necessary to the right 
explanation of our passage are these: κόσμος is 
the opposite of God, it is a whole consisting of 
various parts and members, it is easily the object 
of love: it has a life, but lacks permanence and 
endurance. Hence it is evidently the earthly 
sphere of life, especially as filled with the world 
of man and opposing God, whose real side often 
alternates or concurs with its personal side; as 
applied to things, we have to think not so much 
of trees, flowers, mountains and stars as of what- 
ever forms part of and constitutes the world of 
man, such as rank or dignity, possessions and gifts 
of the mind and of the body and such like. Con- 
sequently the κόσμος must not be taken as the 
sum-total of transient creatures as far as they 
are natural things as Liicke (sum-total of all 
sensuous manifestations, exciting sensuous plea- 
sure), with whom we must rank, de Wette, Briick- 
ner, or J. Lange (systema totius mundi), Neander 
(the world and worldly things), and others con- 
strue the word. But equally objectionable is the: 
interpretation which makes kéouoc=the evil in- 
hering in the world, as given by Greek authors 
(ἡ κοσμικὴ φιληδονία καὶ d:ayvorc), Luther (=the 
world, ἡ e. ungodliness itself, human passions 
according to which man does not rightly use the: 
creature), Calvin (omne genus corruptionis et malo- 
rum omnium abyssum), Morus (malum morale) Sem- 
ler (vulgata consuetudo hominum, res corporeas unice 
appetentium), Erdmann (totus complexus et ambitus 
mali), Ebrard (τὰ ἐν τῷ xéouw—=kinds of sinful. 
living, thinking and demeanor [e. g. covetous- 
ness, ambition, sensuality.—M.]). Lastly, we 
must not limit the application of κόσμος to ‘the 
heathen world” (Lange), ‘‘the mass of ordinary 
men” (Oecumenius: ὁ συρφετὸς not συνῴυτός, as 
Braune corrects M.] ὄχλος, ὅς ov τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς 
ἔχει ἀγάπην ἐν ἑαυτῷ ; Caloy.: homines dediti rebus 
hujus mundi), “the major part of men” (Grotius: 
humanum genus, secundum partem majorem, guz in 
malis actionibus versatur), ‘to that part of the world 
which constituted the anti-christians” (Storr, 
Socinus). Cf. Diisterdieck and Huther ad loc. 
[the latter giving all the passages cited by 
Braune.—M.].—Now while John, according to 
the Lord, urges love, notwithstanding Jno. iii. 
16: οὕτως ἠγάπησεν ὁ ϑεὸς τὸν κόσμον he says here: 


64 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον. There isa difference, if 
the Lord our Saviour and Redeemer, who is 
above the world, loves, or if we love that are of 
the world, needing salvation, although salvable. 
To love is to surrender oneself; God surrenders 
Himself in order to save, overcome and glorify; 
the creature can only surrender itself to the 
world to be ruined, swept along and carried off. 
The creature is forbidden to enter into intimate 
and vital communion, or entire life-fellowship 
with that sphere of humanity which has fallen 
away from God. The Saviour does it in order 
to save from it those who suffer themselves to be 
seized by Him.—My7dé—but not even, or no, not 
even. The Apostle consequently draws a sharp 
distinction between τὸν κόσμον and τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, 
the whole or the general, and the particular or 
the specific. You are not even to love a particu- 
lar, a specific part of the κόσμος ; one may be 
fascinated by this thing, another by that, it all 
amounts to the same; the love of the world is 
there where we find the love of the particular or 
of one particular in the world, be it the gold of 
the earth, which is highly valued among men, or 
human wisdom, or honour with men, or power 
and dominion, or only influence of a less degree 
and in a limited sphere.—This warning is ob- 
viously addressed to all, the πατέρες and νεανίσκοι. 
“Omnibus hee generaliter ecclesiex filiis scribit” 
(Bede). It is not said to the children only 
(Oecumenius); for παιδία and rexvia denote the 
whole church (see above); nor to the young men 
only (Bengel, Sander, Besser), although it fol- 
lows the last address. The next verse, which is 
purely general, as well as the import of this warn- 
ing, require us to understand it as being univer- 
sal in its application. 

The reasons. vy. 15b-17. 

First reason. vv. 156,16. If any one love the 
world, the love of the Father is not in 
him.—‘‘ Unum cor duos tam sibi adversarios amores 
non capit.”” (Bede) ‘‘Contraria non sunt simul” 
(Bengel). Since ὁ κόσμος is the object of love, 
since the Apostle is concerned with the love of 
the world and the heart of man which loves, 
ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς is of course our love of the 
Father; for the love of the Father is not incom- 
patible with the love of the world (Jno. iii. 16), 
Hence ἀγάπῃ τοῦ πατρὸς denotes neither ‘amor 
Patris erga suos et filialis erga Patrem” (Bengel), 
nor ‘‘the love of God toward us” (Luther IL., 
Caloy.), nor the ‘‘caritas quam Pater prescribit” 
(Socinus). We have here the same antithesis 
which is noted in Matth. vi. 24: ϑεῷ καὶ μαμωνᾳῖ 
δουλεύειν, Rom. viii. 5 (σάρξ and πνεῦμα), vy. 7 
(φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός ἔχθρα εἰς ϑεόν); 2 Cor. vi. 15 
(Χριστός and Βελίαρ) ; Jas. iv. 4 (ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσ- 
μου ἔχθρα τοῦ ϑεοῦ and in this Epistle ch. i. ὃ (φῶς 
and σκοτία). This is the reason of the warning 
against the love of the world; the love of the 
world is incompatible with the love of God, as 
our Father; the love of the world cannot consist 
with the sonship of God. [Christians are the 
children of God, God is their Father ; their voca- 
tion is to love their Father, not to love the world. 
—M.]. This is explicitly brought out in 

Ver. 16, Because all that isin the world, 
the lust of the flesh and the lust of the 
eyes and the pride of life, is not of the 
Father, but isof the world. The connection 


of this verse with the one preceding by dr:—=be- 
cause, compels us to emphasize πᾶν; for, because 
there is nothing in the world, the κόσμος, which is 
of the Father, the love of the world is utterly in- 
compatible with the love of the Father.—Ilav τὸ 
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ is evidently not identical with τὰ ἐν 
τῷ κόσμῳ (v. 15); the Singular denotes the tran- 
sition from the particular to the unit: what isin 
the world is conceived as a whole, a totality com- 
prelfending the particular; hence the reference 
is not to objects only, as all those maintain who 
make it identical with τά ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (although 
Ebrard’s exposition correctly adverts to particu- 
lar forms of demeanour, and Diisterdieck speaks 
of a ‘transformation of the conception of the 
objects of the love of the world into the concep- 
tion of subjective love itself and its essential 
modes of representation’’); still less to persons 
(‘‘omnes mundi dilectores non habent nisi concupis- 
centiam”’ Bede); but as Huther excellently puts 
it: ‘All that which constitutes the substance, 
t. 6. the essence of the κόσμος, its inward life, 
which animates it.” The apposition indicates 
the nature of πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, and shows how 
we are to take, and what is the true import of 
these words. The apposition has obviously re- 
spect to life-manifestations in the world of man; 
the whole, the sum and substance, the totality of 
those life-manifestations in the God-forsaken 
world of man, is not of God, but without, and 
opposed to God. In dealing with the difficulty 
connected with the exposition of the apposition: 
ἡ ἐπιϑυμία τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ ἡ ἐπιϑυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν 
καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου, we have to remember 
that all the three clauses must be taken as οοῦγ- 
dinated, and that the Genitive must be construed 
alike in all three cases. The three ideas are 
placed in juxtaposition by καί. Hence Diister- 
dieck errs in making ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκὸς the 
principal idea governing ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν 
and ἀλοζονεία τοῦ βίου. This is confirmed by the 
explanation of the separate ideas. In ἐπιθυμία 
τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν we have evidently the Genitive of the 
subject; it cannot mean: lust after the eyes. 
We have therefore three times the Genitive of the 
subject. In ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός the Genitive of 
the subject is analogous to the idea: 7 σὰρξ 
ἐπιθυμεὶ (Gal. v. 17), and to the grammatical 
usage of the N. T., where, with the exception of 
2 Pet. ii. 10, the Genitive connected with ἐπεϑυμία 
always denotes the subject; but σάρξ denotes 
here what it signifies elsewhere, e. g. in Eph. ii. 
3 (ἐπιϑυμίαι τῆς σαρκὸς) 1 Pet. ii, 11 (ai σαρκικαὶ 
ἐπιϑυμίαι), the desire, the lust of the flesh, as 
suggested by the antithesis of πνεύματι ἄγεσθαι, 
ἐν πνεύματι περιπατεῖν. Limitations like those of 
Augustine (‘‘desiderium earum rerum que pertinent 
ad carnem, sicut cibus et concubitus et cetera hujus- 
modt’’), Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander and 
Besser, who agree with him, or those of Briick- 
ner, who suggests ‘carnal lust in the strict 
sense,” Bengel (‘ea quibus pascuntur sensus qui ap- 
pellantur fruitivi: gustus et tactus,) Gerlach (‘every 
kind of the lust of enjoyment”) and Ebrard 
(‘‘sexual enjoyments’’)—are not in agreement 
with the context and more or less arbitrary. 
Only the limitation required by the codrdinated 
ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν is justifiable; but even this 
is an ἐπεϑυμία, and as such equal to the former, yet 
not τῆς σαρκὸς," but τῶν ὀφϑαλμῶν. This ἐπεϑυωία 


CHAP. 


II. 12-17. 65 


must not be subordinated to the former (as is 
done by Liicke, de Wette and Diisterdieck), but 
it is codrdinated with it. Nor must the Genitive 
be taken at once subjectively and objectively: 
‘the lust of the eyes, and at the same time that, 
wherein as the sensuous-worldly, the eyes delight 
themselves”? (Briickner). The lust of the eyes 
has respect to seeing, consequently the lust to 
see, and to see that which is the object of such 
lust. Hence Spener explains correctly: ‘“all 
sinful lust which seeks for enjoyment in the very 
seeing,” and so does Huther: ‘the desire of 
seeing that which is unseemly, and the sinful 
gratification afforded by seeing it.’’ Hence it 
must not be restricted to ‘‘ omnis curiositas in spec- 
taculis, in theatris”’ (Augustine, Neander); nor is 
it sufficient to say with Calvin: ‘tam libidinosos 
aspectus comprehendit, quam vanitatem, que in pom- 
pis et inani splendore vagatur.” Nor may it be 
referred with Bengel to ‘‘ea, quibus tenentur sensus 
investigativi, oculus sive visus, auditus et olfactus.” 
Nor must extraneous ideas be added thereto, so 
as to make it denote a desire of possession excited 
by sight (Rickli), or straightforth πλεονεξία 
(Luther, Socinus, Grotius, Lorinus, Wolf, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Gerlach, al.), or even ‘the 
whole sphere of the desires of selfishness, envy, 
covetousness, hatred and revenge” (Ebrard). 
Thus the lust of the flesh and the lust of the 
eyes are arbitrarily distinguished from each other 
or rather confounded, since the former is taken 
as sensuality and the latter as covetousness, or 
vice versa. The eyes, instruments of the senses, 
are preéminently the ministering members of the 
life of the soul and the spirit: here is flesh, be- 
come transparent, whereby surrounding objects 
and manifestations produce impressions on the 
life of the soul, and the soul requires insight of 
them. As the Scripture draws a distinction be- 
tween grass and the flower of grass, and under- 
stands thereby the flesh and the glory of the 
flesh (1 Pet. i. 24: σὰρξ ὡς χόρτος and πᾶσα 
δόξα αὐτῆς ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου), and thus points be- 
yond the nearest sphere of carnal life to the life- 
sphere of the soul, so we may distinguish the 
ἐπιϑυμία τῆς σαρκός from the ἐπεϑυμία τῶν ὀφϑαλ- 
μῶν in such manner that the former denotes ab- 
solute, purely sensuous lust, and the latter lust 
which through the instrumentality of the soul, 
points to the spiritual sphere of life. It is note- 
worthy that as Peter subjoins the words (y. 25) 
«τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα Tov ϑεοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν aidva,” so John 
has almost the identical addition: ‘6 δὲ ποιῶν 
τὸ ϑέλημα Tov ϑεοῦ μένει εἰς αἰῶνα." Hence the 
former includes all the desires of possession and 
enjoyment, of covetousness and sensuality, of vul- 
gar or refined form, while the latter embraces 
the desire which longs for, seeks and finds gra- 
tification in social intercourse and the manifes- 
tations of social joys, in works of art down to 
the rude outbreaks of festal joy.—To this is now 
added as a third καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου. While 
ἐπιϑυμία refers twice to acquisition, ἀλαζονεία has 
respect to spending. The noun occurs, besides 
this place, in the N. T. only at Jas. iv. 16: ἐν 
ταῖς ἀλαζονείαις ὑμῶν, the adjective in Rom. i. 30, 
after, and in 2 Tim. iii. 2, before ὑπερήφανος. In 
classical Greek it signifies arrogance and yaunt- 
ing, with the secondary idea of untruthfulness 
and boasting about one’s rank or wealth. In 


James it evidently denotes the outbreaks of that 
arrogance which overlooks the vanity and no- 
thingness of earthly happiness, and boastingly 
confides in it. The ἀλαζών is the vain braggart 
at whom and with whom one may perhaps smile; 
the ὑπερήφανος is the haughty man, who is irrita- 
ble and injurious; the one recognizable in the 
national character of the French, the other in 
that of the English. The Genitive τοῦ βίου, of the 
life, with reference to sustenance and necessaries, 
as is evident from ch. iii. 17; Mark xii. 44; 
Luke viii. 14, 48; xv. 12, 80: xxi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 
4, designating occasionally personal property 
(living), indicates the side on which this brag- 
gart arrogance does and is wont to appear, as 
well where there is little or great abundance as 
where it is merely coveted and want is con- 
cealed; braggart arrogance is wont to appear 
in connection with bodily sustenance and neces- 
saries. Augustine: ‘‘Jactare se vult in honoribus, 
magnus sibi videtur, sive de divitiis, sive de aliqua 
potentia.” Bengel: ‘Ut velit quam plurimus esse 
in victu, cultu, apparatu, suppellectili, xdificiis, prx- 
diis, famulitio, clientibus, jumentis, muneribus, ete., 
Rev. xviii. 12. Chrysostomus appellat tov τῦφον τὸν 
βιωτικὸν et τὴν φαντασίαν τοῦ βίου." Examples 
occur in Gen. xi. 2-4; 1 Chron. xxii. 1, sqq.; 
Eccles. ii. 1, sqq.; Ezek. xxviii. 12-19; Dan. iv. 27; 
Rey. xvii. 4—6; xviii, 4-7. So Liicke, Sander, Besser 
and Huther; Neander, Gerlach and Diisterdieck 
may be included in this category. Hence it is 
not correct to restrict the meaning to ambition, 
superbia, ambitio (Cyrillus, Socinus, al.).—We 
should hold with Bengel that: ‘Non coincidunt 
cum his tribus tria vitia cardinalia, voluptas, avaritia, 
superbia: sed tamen in his continentur.” The hy- 
pothesis that this trinity contains a complete in- 
dication of all the forms in which evilis apt to 
manifest itself, has become traditional, and goes 
so far that Bede following Augustine said: ‘Per 
hee tria tantum cupiditas humana tentatur; per hee 
tria Adam tentatus est et victus; per hee tentatus 
est Christus et vicit.” A Lapide actually discovered 
in them the correlatives of the three Persons of 
the Holy Trinity answering to the three primariz 
virtutes, continentia, caritas, humilitas [which ac- 
cording to Huther are closely connected with the 
three monastic vows of chastity, poverty and obe- 
dience.—M.]. The majority of practical expo- 
sitors have followed this track with various mo- 
difications, even Pascal (Pensées, 28, 55) says: 
‘‘ libido sentiendi, sciendi, dominandi.” Liicke very 
rightly opposed this interpretation and main- 
tained that the point in question did not relate 
to cardinal vices, but to the chief forms (Briick- 
ner; ‘‘ leading biasses”’) of worldly-mindedness. 
These, as Bengel observes, sustain an intimate 
relation to one another: ‘‘Htiam wi, qui arrogan- 
tiam vitee non amant, tamen concupiscentiam ocu- 
lorum sectari possunt, et qui hanc superarunt, tamen 
concupiscentiam carnis persepe retinent: hee enim- 
profundissima et communissima, apud minores, medio- 
ximos et potentes: apud eos etiam, qui abnegationem 
sui colere videntur-; et rursum, nisi vincatur, ab ea 


facile progreditur homo ad concupiscentiam oculo- 


rum, ubi materiam habet; et ab hac ad superbiam 
vite, ubi facultatem habet; tertiogue includitur se- 
cundum, secundo primum.” Thus ambition is 
ἐπιϑυμία τῆς σαρκός only in so far as it wants to 
cast others in the shade, it is ἐπεϑυμία τῶν ὀόφθαλ- 


66 


͵ 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


ee Tn “ππὐτσ “π΄ ΄ποτας τος -- --- ααὐσετσον ἐ 


μῶν as far as it aims at recognition and marks 
of recognition, and it is ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου as far 
as it is indulged in the consciousness of position 
and wealth, and in every form there are degrees 
of intensiveness and coarseness. The same holds 
good of avarice, voluptuousness and the love of 
pleasure. We have here by no means a complete 
catalogue of the biasses and forms of manifesta- 
tion of evil. Unlovingness specified above (vy. 
2-11) and mendacity mentioned below (vy. 18-20) 
although connected with this [trichotomy M.], 
are not contained in or denoted by it. Hence 
Luther, followed by Sander, rightly observes: 
‘These three particulars are not of the Father: 
1. Hatred of the brethren. 2. The three idols of 
the world. 3. False and corrupt doctrine.—The 
terms ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, ἐκ Tov κόσμου εἶναι denote 
origin and indicate similarity, congruity and 
connection. This isthe profound truth that no- 
thing is esteemed with God except His own Image; 
whatever is to have respect to Him, to belong to 
Him, to be, and able to be united with Him, must 
come from Him; ch. ii. 29; iii. 7 sqq.; iv. 2 sqq.; 
7 sqq.; v. 1 sqq.; Jno. viii. 44. So Diisterdieck, 
Huther, and Ebrard in opposition to de Wette 
[Paulus and Baumgarten-Crusius—M. ], whodeny 
the reference to origin and restrict the application 
of the terms tocongruity andsimilarity. The anti- 
thesis, intensified by the repetition of ἐστί ‘‘is not 
of the Father, but is of the world” marks with pecu- 
liar pointedness the wor/d as the source of ungod- 
liness. The world will not tolerate any thing that 
does not derive its being from it or belongs to it. 
We see therefore how God and the world are just 
here opposed to each other, irreconciled and irre- 
concilable; both are inflexible and neither can 
yield the place to the other. [Diisterdieck: 
“Through our whole Epistle runs the view which 
is also manifest in the Gospel of St. John, that 
only the mind which springs from God is directed 
to God. He who is born of God, loves God, 
knows God, does God’s will. God Himself, who 
first loved us, viz. in Christ His incarnate Son, 
begot in us that love which of moral necessity 
returns again tothe Father, and of like necessity 
embraces our brethren also. This love is hated 
by the world, because it springs not from the 
world. It depends not on the world, any more 
than that perverted love which springs from the 
world and is directed towards the world, the lust 
of the flesh, etc., can be directed to the Father or 
to God’s children. So that John grasps in reality 
down to the very foundations of the moral life, 
when he reminds his readers of the essentially 
distinct origin of the love of the world, and the 
love of God. The inmost kernel of the matter is 
hereby laid bare, and with it a glimpse is given 
of the whole process of the love of the world and 
the love of God, even to the end; and this end 
is now set forth expressly with extraordinary 
power.’—M.]. ~But 

The second reason: v. 17. 

And the world passeth away and the 
lust thereof; but he that doeth the will 
of God abideth for ever.—The world can 
only be taken here in the same sense as in the 
preceding verses, viz.: the world of man fallen 
away from and opposing God, which is a power, 
and as a power awes many, but does and has great 
things. But what is true of the σκοτία, y. 8, ap- 


plies also to it: παράγεται, it passeth away, it is 
passing away and disappearing; the sense must 
not be limited to the transitory world, to be de- 
stroyed in the judgment (Bede: ‘‘ mundus transi- 
bit, quum in die Judicii per tgnem in meliorem muta- 
bitur figuram, ut sit celum novum et terra nova’’), 
nor must the term be so construed as to express 
the consciousness of the approaching advent of 
Christ and the judgment of the κόσμος connected 
with it (Luther, with reference to vv. 8. 18: 
ἐσχάτη ὥρα). It is, in effect, the uninterruptedly 
peculiar nature and destiny of the world (Oecu- 
menius: ““τὰ κοσμικὰ ἐπιθυμήματα οὐκ ἔχει τὸ 
μένον τε καὶ ἑστὼς, τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
διακρῇ καὶ διαιωνίζοντα (Diisterdieck: ‘‘ because 
of its alienation from God, doomed to passing 
away, to death’’). The antithesis μένει requires 
and confirms this view. Although Diisterdieck 
distinguishes his view, according to which he 
finds here more permanently valid axiomatic 
truths concerning the course of the love of God 
or the love of the world, from that of Oecumenius, 
who gives prominence to the properties of the 
love of the world and of the obedience to the 
commandments of God, the two views ought 
really to be combined thus: it fares with the 
world according to its nature, and the nature of 
the world agrees with its passing away. And as 
it passes away, so also passes away its lust, 
the lust which inheres in it, emanates from it, 
and governs it. Hence αὐτοῦ is the Genitive of 
the subject, as maintained by most commenta- 
tors; it cannot mean lust after it or in it, as if 
αὐτοῦ were the Genitive of the object (Liicke, 
Neander, Sander, Besser, al.), Of course, the 
lust of the world refers also to the world and the 
things and manifestations in it, and not to God 
and the riches of His Kingdom. If the whole, 
the world, belonging to death, passes away, then 
also its parts, the life that is in it, its separate 
manifestations and exhibitions of life in indivi- 
duals, must pass away. This makes one tho- 
roughly loathe the love of the world—the 
ἀγαπᾷν τὸν κόσμον. Who wants to seize and hold 
as the object of his love that which is perishable, 
doomed to death and perpetual defeat? The . 
clause ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ ϑέλημα Tov ϑεοῦ supplies not 
only an antithesis, but affirms that the ἐπεϑυμία 
τοῦ κόσμου does not the will of God, that the 
ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός shows and verifies itself in the 
ποιεῖν τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ Yeov, even as unfolded in vy. 
3, sqq., that the child does not trifle with the will 
of the Father, for the Father is God. To such 
applies the μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, the antithesis of 
παράγεται, he abides therefore unto, into eternity, 
sharing and assured of the imperishable and 
beatific life: redeemed from ϑάνατος, from the 
σκοτία, he gains φῶς, ζωὴ αἰώνιος.  [Huther: 
«The destiny of the κόσμος is ϑάνατος, that of the 
children of God ζωὴ αἰώνιος." ---Μ.1. This antithe- 
sis points to the fact that the παράγεται of the 
world will sooner or later have run its course, 
and that the world will have ceased to exist. 
Most singular and arbitrary is the opinion of 
Ebrard, who says that ‘‘aidv is the won which 
will gloriously begin with the yisible establish- 
ment of Christ’s Kingdom on earth,” and that 
consequently ὁ ποιῶν----εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα signifies that 
‘‘he that does the will of God will abide until 
then, until the Kingdom of Christ is established, 


CHAP II. 12-17. 


and be suffered to witness the victory of Christ’s 
Kingdom.” The addition, ‘‘guwomodo et deus manet 
in xternum,”’ found in several Latin translations, 
but not in Jerome’s, is rather remarkable. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The gift of the forgiveness of sins (v. 12), 
which is, at the same time, the gift of adoption, 
[of being made the child of God—M.], ν. 13c, 
establishes a relationship which must verify itself 
in corresponding conduct, in the way of sanctifi- 
cation. God has taken the initiative, but man 
must seize it and hold fast, keep and verify it in 
striving after more profound knowledge, and in 
struggling for the peace of victory. On the gift 
of the forgiveness of our sins, and on that of our 
adoption with the Father, rest the more intimate 
knowledge of Christ, the victorious fight against 
Satan, and the enjoyment of the fruits of victory. 
In the fellowship with the Father and the Son are 
given us life, light, forgiveness, truth, wisdom, 
and understanding, and victory over the world 
and the devil. The victory of Christ (John xvi. 
33) is the presupposition of all true victories, and 
His victory must continue in ours. John grounds 
the duties of Church members on the high privi- 
leges and immunities of the Christian state, and 
makes gratitude the principle of morality. 


2. The peace-work of profound meditation and 
mature knowledge in men can only take place 
and prove successful if preceded by the struggles 
and triumphs of young men [i. e., the man must 
have passed through the discipline of the young 
man.—M.]. Great purity and integrity are in- 
dispensable to the clear perception and more tho- 
rough knowledge of the glory of Christ, of His 
Person, His Word, and His work. True know- 
ledge presupposes life in fellowship with the 
Person known; it is a living reality and not a 
mere dogmatical formula (concerning the Per- 
son of Christ). Nothing but fighting against 
Satan will facilitate our knowledge of the eternal 
glory of Christ. 


3. The κόσμος is diametrically opposed to God, 
and the heart of man cannot combine the love of 
the world and the love of the Father; the latter 
cannot thrive because of the former, or the former 
must be overcome, and disappearing, yield the 
place to the latter in the course of its growth and 
development. Where the life of [emanating from 
—M.|] God is extant there may still be the world, 
but its power must be broken, it must wane more 
and more, and its still surviving remainder must 
recede before increasing and waxing knowledge 
and joy. Worldly life and godly life are not only 
two different biasses, but two opposite inclina- 
tions, incompatible and destroying each other. 

4. It is not in point of space that we must flee 
from the world, but it is with reference to ethi- 
cal principles that we must shun it, without loving 
it, turned away from it, to prevent our dying and 
perishing in and with it; some one thing may so 
effectually lay hold of one or another as to 
sweep him along with the fearful destruction of 
the whole κόσμος. 

5. The definite superiority of the divine to the 
worldly may be gathered from the transitoriness 
of the world. Here is ‘‘afforded a vista through 
the whole process of the world’s history, as well 


67 


as of the love of God, right on to the end” (Diis- 
terdieck), and at the same time an insight into the’ 
biography of individuals. 

6. He that has separated himself from God, has 
estranged himself from Him, falls into the power 
of death; the world contains death in the love of 
itself. None but those who love the Father have 
the life; yet none love the Father but those who 
have and with true fidelity keep His word. But 
there exists no eternal kingdom of evil, the prin- 
cipially dualistic predisposition to evil, but only a 
condition which has become so, from which any 
and every man may and shall be redeemed, who 
does not offer any resistance. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The gift of the forgiveness of sins sets us the 
task of fighting against the destroyer, and ac- 
quiring the knowledge of the Saviour. The gift 
of the forgiveness of sins is sonship with God and 
the knowledge of the Father. Holy Scripture di- 
rects us first to the knowledge of sin, then to fight 
against and overcome the wicked one, and lastly 
to acquire the knowledge of the God-man. Holy 
Scripture addresses first children—that is to say, 
the children of God; the word of God isthe word 
of the Father to His children; the word of God 
calls all, whom it addresses, children, because 
He is the Father of all. Young men and fathers 
cannot go beyond this chzld-ship [I retain this 
Germanism in this place in order to render the 
thought more perspicuous; neither the word 
sonship nor adoption conveys the precise shade 
of thought.—M.]. No age of life can or may de- 
sire to surpass the stage of childhood before God. 
The life-truth of the Gospel is only one, emanating 
from one Spirit, resting on one foundation, con- 
sisting in one Spirit, but like the sun, shedding 
its illuminating and vitalizing beams in all di- 
rections: away with all false individualizing and 
all dry moralizing! He that loves not the world 
in God as the object of redemption to its salva- 
tion, loves it only without God to his own perdi- 
tion. The world, which thou lovest, reacts more 
on thee than thou art able to influence it; thou 
wilt sooner become worldly through it, than it 
will become Christian through thee. Shun not 
the world, but love it not; be not afraid of it, 
but’be afraid of thy love of it. 

Bopmer:—John the Apostle survived twelve 
Roman emperors: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, 
Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasi- 
anus, Titus, Domitianus and Nerva; great ex- 
pectations and hopes were entertained of each 
one of these lords of the world, but all failed in 
the case of the best of them: instead of healing, 
they inflicted wounds, and many came to a mise- 
rable end, 

Grerson:—Amor habet vim uniendi, si terram 
amas, terrenus es; si deum, divinus. 

Spener:—Every age should diligently culti- 
vate the virtue becoming it before others, which 
is especially done by each particular age apply- 
ing its natural gifts to the growth of life (under- 
standing in the case of the old, strength in the 
case of young men, simplicity in the case of 
children).—Those who have overcome Satan as 
young men, may afterwards truly and fully know 
Christ as fathers, while those who have served 


68 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


him do not easily attain such knowledge, which 
is a kind of reward of gracé.—The word of God 
does not only come to us, but abides also in us, 
and consequently is not a dead or passing sound 
—That which does not abide forever is not wor- 
thy of our love; for God has created, appointed 
and called us unto eternal things. 

Srarke:—Preachers should particularly urge 
obedience to the commandments of God, and re- 
nunciation of the love of the world on the plea 
of the grace of God in the forgiveness of sins, as 
a more powerful incentive than considerations 
founded on the Law.—Although you have con- 
~ quered the devil once, he will return and assault 
you with sevenfold strength to rob you of your 
crown. Therefore, ye warriors of Jesus, grow 
not secure, but think that your task is not done 
with one well-fought battle.—O the deluded souls 
that fancy that it is the privilege of their rank to 
use the world at their pleasure, to lead a worldly 
and carnal life, and to be good Christians for all! 
They will terribly deceive themselves, for the 
mere name is not sufficient.—Christians, would 
you love the Father, you must content yourselves 
with the necessaries of the body, bridle your 
eyes, and lead a life of simplicity.—The world 
and its lusts pass swiftly away, like an arrow 
cuts through the air, like smoke blows away, like 
a river flows along, like a bird flies past, like a 
sound dies away. What folly to set one’s hope 
and pleasure on such changeable and transitory 
things !—Itis well, but not enough to know the will 
of God, we must do it in the strength of God, 
with all diligence, at all times, in all things, if we 
would abide forever.—It is a great mercy of God 
that He accepts our poor, imperfect doing, pro- 
vided it be done with a childlike heart, as the 
doing of His will—None can do the will of God 
without denying his own will, for the will of God 
and corruptible self-will are utterly opposed to 
each other. 

Hevsner:—VFathers are spiritual adults, ma- 
tured Christians; they have known Christ, the 
Son of God, from personal experience, made 
proof of His power, or He has been fully formed 
in them (Eph. iv. 18; 1 Thess. Wie bis Ee Dy Ns 
14). The image of Christ has a feeble and ten- 
der beginning in childhood; it continues grow- 
ing in youth, but does not attain perfect clear- 
ness with open face until manhood. No warrior 
can go beyond this: Christ and His knowledge 
excel all perfection. We have here the case of 
souls that long since have acquired forgiveness 
and cleansing from their sins, overcome the 
wicked one, stood severe trials and hard con- 
flicts, in victory have been planted in the like- 
ness of Christ’s death, and made experience of 
the power of His resurrection. As futhers they 
possess spiritual generative powers. They are the 
mellow old wine. They are called τέλειοι, they are 
the nearest friends of the Lord, His intimates, that 
have a better understanding of His counsel: but, 
although thus highly raised by God, they never 
divest themselves of their childlike disposition. 
The sense of redemption in Christ, true poverty 
of spirit, voluntary and constant self-denial and 
strong love are their characteristics. But they 
still stand in need of instruction and caution 
(an old Christian had been victorious in the fight 
for thirty-nine years, but was overcome in the 


fortieth year.) They must fight senectule contra 
senectutem. They have more works than words. 
They are engaged in ceaseless intercessions for 
all the people of God, and gather riches for the 
children (2 Cor. xii. 14). But they must be very 
careful not to usurp an authority and power, in 
virtue of which they require others blindly and 
unconditionally to follow and agree with them; 
the moment they fall into this snare they cease 
to be fathers, and become the destroyers of the 
Christlike spirit in the children.— Young men are 
those who are still engaged in active warfare, 
and have to fear most the assaults of the flesh, 
the world and the devil; they ought to have be- 
gun to taste the better delights [of religion] and 
should overcome Satan. Hence they are always 
prepared for the battle. He that has become a 
true child of God must not care for the age of 
youth. Can any one, by anxious care, add one 
cubit unto his stature [age]? He that preserves 
that which he has, to him shall be given more; 
the process of growth is imperceptible (Mark 
iv. 28). They ought to have the spirit of power 
and vigilance; as valiant soldiers they must al- 
ways be at their post, warring against the ene- 
my. Their dangers are rashness, undue ardor, 
temerity and negligence. They must have work 
to do, they must destroy Babylon, but abstain 
from all things, and fight faithfully unto death. 
They must not be discouraged in the first ardor 
of their zeal, for that first ardor may lose its 
intensity. Their strength will be in proportion 
to their allowing their strength quietly to strike 
root; even Christ walked in silence and retire- 
ment during His youth, and John was in the wil- 
derness. They must learn to enter into the 
mystery of godliness, abstain from ‘their doing in 
order that God may work in them, that thus they 
may resist the πονηρός, the spoiler, who comes 
from without and forces his way into them, and 
would fain seize the youthful warriors. Hence 
they need circumspection and weapons (Eph. 
vi).—Children are beginners in Christianity who 
have already tasted the paternal love of God, who 
receive from the Father more tokens of love, as 
it were, more caressing. But they must be 
truly born of God, have a new mind, the Spirit 
of adoption whereby they ery Abba, Father. 
Their general characteristics are these: a child- 
like disposition, lowliness, obedience, sincerity, 
joyfulness. Their childlike failings are: cre- 
dulity, carelessness, rashness, inconstancy, or 
even wandering from the simplicity in Christ. 
They are strongly attached to the sweet taste 
of grace. They require oversight, guidance, 
nursing, care,keeping; they require milk until 
they are able to take stronger food and grow. 
(Here we may refer to the choral divisions among 
the unitas fratrum: children, older boys, single 
brethren, single sisters, the chorus of married 
people, widowers and widows, to the incipientes, 
proficrentes and profecti of the Morayvians, and to 
the analogies of paganism, Plato de legg. 11., 
where the chorus of boys, of young men to the 
age of thirty, of men to the age of sixty, used 
fascinatingly to implant the true and the good 
into the minds of the people in songs, and Plu- 
tarch lacon. instit. according to which, among the 
Spartans, old men used to sing: ‘‘Once we were 
| vigorous youths;” men, “We are so; if thou de- 


CHAP. II. 12-17. 


69 


Ts lic 7 i Aki iL Gay LD En En GL Lan nnn ee 1 


sirest it, try ;” and the boys, ‘Some day we shall 
even be better”’).—Zove is the noblest power in 
man, which he ought not to waste on unworthy 
objects, but he ought to love God only.—The 
world is set before men to try them, whether 
they will lay hold of it or of heavenly things.— 
The objects of our desires, as far as they are 
creatures, are not evil in themselves (1 Tim. iv. 
4; 1 Cor. x. 26), but the passionate desire of 
them is evil, and of the evil spirit. The excusatio 
of worldlings is: ‘it is natural, it is innocent.” 
That is to lay the responsibility of sin on God.— 
Worfdly-mindedness and religion are incompati- 
ble. There are, indeed, many degrees of this 
worldly-mindedness and fondness of worldly plea- 
sures, but this much is certain: 1. Those in whom 
this fondness is strong and supreme, to whom non- 
gratification causes anger and a blank, are with- 
out the divine life. 2. Every worldly pleasure, 
though indifferent of itself, becomes sin if it 
leads astray from God, and has to be enjoyed 
without God. 8. In proportion to the growth of 
religion is the decrease of a mind and taste for 
worldly lusts, and vice versa.—It is disgraceful in 
clergymen [Germ. Geiséliche, a technical term for 
clergymen, of which the English divines isthe near- 
est approximation, or we may also say ‘spiritual 
and secular,” but, of course, without any refer- 
ence to the Roman Catholic use of these terms— 
M.], who ought to be the opposite of the worldly, 
to exhibit worldliness in the bias of their mind 
and conversation.—What comes of the transitori- 
ness of the world and of the things which lust 
desires? What harm does it do to the worldly? 
1. Even in respect of this earthly life it is pain- 
ful and humiliating to take pleasure in enjoy- 
ments which are wholly idle and transient, and 
leave behind them nothing that is refreshing 
or ennobling, but, perhaps, something that will 
fill the mind with gloom, paralyze and deject the 
spirit—a melancholy blank. 2. This holds good 
still more in respect of the life to come. The 
objects will cease, but not the desire, which will 
then lack the instruments and means of its gra- 
tification. Painful condition. Such a soul will 
then behold itself in its miserable emptiness and 
vileness. Therefore consider the transitoriness 
and consequences of every sinful lust. (Oriental 
saying: The treasures of the world are so con- 
stituted that they will deprive thee of life, if thou 
gatherest them).— 

Neanper:—It is not part of the nature of the 
love of God that we must retire from the world 
and worldly things, but rather that we should 
use them according to the purpose which God has 
assigned to all men, to His glory. 

Brsser:—The forgiveness of sins is the bread 
on which the great and the small, Apostles and 
malefactors, the wise and the illiterate, kings 
and beggars (kings as beggars, and beggars as 
kings), live in the kingdom of God, even as the 
fourth and fifth petitions of the Lord’s Prayer 
are significantly joined together by and. 

JOHANN BUGENHAGEN’s motto was: ‘Si Chris- 
twm bene scis, satis est, si cetera nescis: si Christum 
nescis, nib est, st cetera discis.”’ 

Leo rue Great:—There are two kinds of love 
from which proceeds every lust according to its 
kind: man, who cannot exist without love, loves 
either God or the world. 


SpeneR.—This ecither—or is an established 
thing which will never yield the place to an as 
well—as. To contribute one cent to ungodliness 
is as much as to give up to it the whole, St, 
Bernard calls pride the arch-artificer of fraud, 
and the true fountain of vice, the tinder of sin, 
the rust of virtues, the moth of holiness, the be- 
guiler of hearts, that turns medicine into poison, 
and cordials into stupefying draughts. A soul 
has nothing in eternity but what it has gathered 
in time. 

Nitzscu:—The principal question of the divine 
word addressed to fathers: Do you know Him 
that is from the beginning? Let us consider: 1. 
Why this question is peculiarly suited to the 
aged? The excellency and glory of old age is 
experience, its natural avocation to gather and 
to have gathered it, its supreme requirement. to 
have wisdom by and in experience. How much 
more important is it to have seen and felt a thing, 
to have shared its suffering, than merely to have 
heard of it! 2. Which knowledge does it speak 
of? The First and the Last has been revealed in 
the centre of history, He by whom and for whom 
all things consist; time has become conscious of 
eternity. Humanity has been raised from pro- 
found misery to high glory. This knowledge 
compensates the eye for every unavoidable want 
of light, supplies the solution of many riddles, 
finds the kernel of many experiences, marks the 
holy line of human effort, cherishes the sweet 
hope of beholding [God], and thinks well done 
that which God doeth. 3. The great monition and 
the glorious consolation contained therein. Many 
things improve by age, but not the fundamental 
error, erring from God. Self-will and unbelief 
do not break spontaneously by mere events; the 
secret will of the natural man grows to a fearful 
height and resoluteness; rather die in sins than 
present oneself blind and naked, miserable and 
poor before the only Mediator, the Conqueror on 
the cross. Do you s¢ild know Him, do you know 
Him again? Be overcome and ye shall conquer; 
His knowledge rejuvenates you like eagles, makes 
you wise, and crowns all knowledge and expe- 
rience with faith in the eternal words. he mo- 
nition of the divine word to young men that they have 
overcome the wicked one. Regard it—l, as a con- 
gratulation on their participation in the victory of 
Christ, but also as a threefold test-inquiry of thé 
reality of their Christianity. After the victory of 
Christ, the time of the mere doubtful struggle 
between the death and life of mankind, the time 
of invincible sin, of the immeasurable progress 
of corruption, belongs to the remote past. If 
you fear already, or are still afraid in this world, 
be of good courage and know that you enter into 
a reconciled world, and stand in eternal peace, 
and partake of a happiness and liberty that have 
not to be fought for and devised, but may be 
seized and enjoyed in true faith. But here you 
have to inquire after faith in this word,—since the 
tendency prevails not to believe that which was 
believed by the fathers; many, all believe to in- 
demnify themselves for childlike faith with the 
conceits of the unvanished beauty of the world, 
of the power of the mind of man and of the inno- 
cence and goodness of the heart of man,—to in- 
quire after the knowledge of this truth, after the 
decision and conversion of the heart, whether that 


70 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


will reigns supreme which says, How should I do 
this great evil and sin against my God? whether 
you are consciously or unconsciously under the 
jurisdiction of the prince of this world, and unfit- 
ted for the true work of your ealling.... 2. Asa 
call to resistance, and at the same time as a promise 
of assistance. This bears on your bravery, your 
honour, your independence, ye that are in such 
hurry to be men. There are many adversaries 
from without that reappear again and again ; fight 
the invisible battles in your souls. It is good tor 
aman to have worn the yoke in his youth, but 
how much better this yoke; thus you will gain a 
clear and pure view of your future, thus you 
spend the time of your transitory youth for the 
purpose of securing eternal youth, thus you care 
to-day for to-morrow and ever, even unto the 
judgment; all things are yours. 

Hast thou broken with the world? 1. Art thou 
perhaps still wholly entangled in its lust? 2. 
Art thou convinced that it is impossible to love 
God and the world at the same time? 3. Dost 
thou daily fight victoriously against the lust of 
the world tempting thee? 


What is the Christian’s relation to the world? 1. 
He knows that its lust, without any exception, is 
sin (vy. 16), and such sin as is incompatible with 
the Christian profession (v. 15), and on this very 
account 2. He shuns and flies it (v. 15). 


Consider how little the love of the world comports 
with sincere conversion towards God. 1. The latter 
imposes renunciation of the world and its lust as 
a necessary condition. 2. It affords strength 
for overcoming the world. 3. And is itself a 
continued combat with the temptations of the 
world. 


The infamy of a Christian being the slave of 
worldly lust. 1. He thereby enters the service 
of worldly vanity, 2. becomes the enemy of God, 
and 38. will perish with the world (L. in ‘‘Gesetz 
und Zeugniss”’ for 1860).— 


[Ezexiet Hopxins:—y. 15, “For these things 
(Pleasures, Riches, Honours), though they make 
a fair and gaudy show, vet it is all but show and 
appearance. As bubbles, blown into the air, 
will represent great variety of orient and glitter- 
ing colours, not, as some suppose, that there are 
any such really there, but only they appear so 
to us, through a false reflection of light cast upon 
them: so truly this world, this earth on which 
we live, is nothing else but a great bubble blown 
up by the breath of God in the midst of the air, 
where it now hangs. It sparkles with ten thou- 
sand glories: not that they are so in themselves, 
but only they seem so to us through the false 
light by which we look upon them. If we come 
to grasp it, it breaks and leaves nothing but 
wind and disappointment in our hands: as his- 
tories report of the fruits that grow near the 
Dead sea, where once Sodom and Gomorrah 
stood, they appear very fair and beautiful to the 
eye, but if they be crushed, turn straight to 
smoke and ashes.” 


There is nothing in the world vain in respect 
of its natural being or of God the Creator—but 
all the vanity that is in worldly things, is only in 
respect of the sin and folly of man, [Augustine: 
““Utendum est hoc mundo, non fruendum; ut invisi- 
bilia Dei, per ea que facta sunt, intelligantur; hoc 


a | 


est, ut de temporalibus xterna capiantur.”—M.]. 
The vanity of the world appears in: 

1. That all its glory and splendour depend 
merely on opinion and fancy. 

2. In its deceitfulness and treachery. 
not only vanity, but a lying vanity. 

3. As all things in the world are lying vanities, 
so are they all vexatious. ‘‘ Uncertain comforts 
but most certain crosses.” 

4. A little cross will embitter great comforts— 
another mark of the vanity of the world. 

5. The longer we enjoy any worldly thing, the 
more flat and insipid doth it grow. 

6. All the pleasure of the world is nothing else 
but a tedious repetition of the same things. 

7. The world can stand us in no stead, when 
we have the greatest need of support and com- 
fort. 

8. All things in the world are vain, because 
they are unsuitable. 

The soul is spiritual and immortal, worldly 
things are material and perishable. 

Its wants are spiritual—but the world supplies 
only material wants. 

9. The vanity of the world appears in its in- 

constancy and fickleness and— 
10. In that it is altogether unsatisfactory.— 
M.]. ; 
(Bannow:—The world is an enemy, an irre- 
concilable enemy to our salvation. The world, 
that is, the wicked principles, the bad customs, 
the naughty conversation and example which 
commonly prevail here among men; alluring to 
evil and deterring from good; the cares also, the 
riches, the pleasures, the glories of the world, 
which possess or distract the minds, satiate and 
cloy the desires, employ all the affections and 
endeavours, take up the time of men; all in the 
world which fasteneth our hearts to earth, and 
to those low transitory things; or which sink 
them down toward hell and which detain them 
from soaring toward heayen. 

The world passeth away and the desire (ἐπιθυμία) 
thereof; whatever seemeth most lovely and desi- 
rable in the world is very flitting; however, our 
desire and our enjoyment thereof must suddenly 
cease. Imagine a man, therefore, possessed of 
all worldly goods, armed with power, flourishing 
in credit, flowing with plenty, swimming in all 
delight (such as were sometime Priamus, Poly- 
erates, Croesus, Pompey) yet since he is withal 
supposed a man, and mortal, subject both to 
fortune and death, none of those things can he 
reasonably confide or much satisfy himself in; 
they may be violently divorced from him by for- 
tune, they must naturally be loosed from him by 
death; the closest union here cannot last longer 
than till death us depart; wherefore no man 
upon such account can truly call, or, if he con- 
sider well, heartily esteem himself happy; a 
man cannot hence receive profit or content from 
any labour he taketh under the sun. (Eccles, i. 
ὃ sqq.)—M.]. . 

[On ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου v. 16. ‘It was a perti- 
nent discourse of Cineas, dissuading Pyrrhus 
from undertaking a war against the Romans, 
Sir, saith he, when you have conquered them, 
what will you do next? Then Sicily is near at 
hand, and easy to master.—And what when you 
have subdued Sicily? Then we will pass over 


It is 


CHAP. II. 18-28. 


71 


to Africa and take Carthage, which cannot long 
withstand us.—When these are conquered, what 
will be your next attempt ?—Then we will fall 
in upon Greece and Macedon and recover what 
we have lost there.—Well, when all are subdued, 
what fruit do you expect from all your victories? 
Then we will sit down and enjoy ourselves. Sir, 
replied Cineas, may we not doit now? Have 
you not already a kingdom of your own? and he 
that cannot enjoy himself with a kingdom, can- 
not with the world.” Plutarch in Vita Pyrrhi.— 
M.]. 

aa (v. 12-14):—The cautions I here give 
you ought to be equally regarded by all degrees 
of Christian professors. The new converts and 
younger Christians are to consider themselves as 
newly put into a state of salvation, the pardon of 
sin, and the favour of God, through Jesus Christ; 
and to endeavour to confirm themselves in it by 
the careful practice of true Christian virtue. 
Such as are come to more maturity in their pro- 
fession and are in the strength and vigour of 
their age, have a great advantage, and ought to 
employ the utmost of that vigour in resisting the 
strongest temptations of the devil, and perfecting 
their conquest over him and all his wicked in- 


struments. And the aged Christians cannot but 
have so dear a knowledge of God, and the reve- 
lation of His will by Jesus Christ, during the 
long season from their first conversion, that it 
would be utterly inexcusable for them to be 
wanting in their essential duties or be drawn 
from them by the false teachers.—M. ]. 


[Ver. 12. Simeon, C., The different growth 
and privileges of God’s children. Works xx. 398. 


Vy. 18.14. Marsuatt, N., Peculiar tempta- 
tions attending every stage of life, with the spe- 
cial advantages and counter-motives that are 
found in each, considered particularly with re- 
gard to old age. 

The temptations that most endanger our first 
stage of life, with the duties most incumbent 
upon us in that early period, and the motives to 
discharge them. 

Peculiar temptations treated in reference to 
such as are in the bloom and vigour of life. 
Sermons, iv. 433, 459, 485. 

Ver. 15. Funuer, Tuos., An ill match well 
broken off. Joseph’s party-coloured coat. 


Vv. 15-17. Bossver, Traité de la Concupis- 
cence. (Huvres, xiv. 26.—M. ]. 


7. Warning and consolation against Anti-Christ. 


DESCRIPTION OF HIS FORERUNNERS, WHOSE APPEARANCE POINTS TO THE LAST 


TIME (VV. 18-23). 


EXHORTATION OF THE FAITHFUL TO STEADFASTNESS IN 


THEIR ASSURANCE OF POSSESSING THE TRUTH AND ETERNAL LIFE (V. 24-28). 


CuaPrTeR ii, 18-28. 


even now are‘ there many antichrists; 


Little children, it is the last time’, and as ye have heard that? antichrist’ shall come, 
whereby® we know that it is the last time’. 


They went out from us’, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they 


would no doubt® have continued® with us: but they went out", that they might be 


Holy One, and ye™ know all things”. 


denieth the Father and the Son. 


therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning 


the Father®: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also”. 


made manifest that they were" not all of us. But" ye have an® unction from the 
I have not written unto you because ye know 
not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth”. Who is 
a” liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? 
Whosoever” denieth the Son, the same hath not 


He'® is antichrist, that 


Let that 
If that which ye 


ΟἿΣ, 


have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, 


and in the Father®. And this is the promise that he* hath promised us*, even eternal 
life®, These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you”. 
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you*; and ye need not 
that any man teach you: but as the same” 
is truth”, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him”. And 


anointing teacheth you of all things, and 


now, little children, abide in him; that when” he shall appear®, we may have™ confi- 
dence, and not be ashamed before him® at his coming. 


Π ἐσχάτη &pa=the last hour.—M.] 


Verse 18. 
; 2B. C. Sin. read ὅτι after ἠκούσατε. 


8 B. Ὁ. Sin. omit the Article before ἀντίχριστος. 
have been omitted, had it been originally there. 
ἰς German: “ Even now have there come into existence ” Lillie: 


5 ὃ θε v—=whence.—M.] 
6 German: 


Est lectio difficilior. 


In Sin. it is clearly a later addition. It would hardly 
{Lachm. Tisch. Buttm. reject it—M.] 
“ even now are there many become.” —M.] 


“that there isa last hour.” Lillie: “that it is the last hour.”—M.] 


Verse 19. I Better to retain the Greek order with German: “ From us they went ουἱ. --πἐξῆλθαν, A. B. C. Lach. 
Tisch. Buttm. Huther, is more authentic than ἐξῆλθον α. K., but less common.—M.] 


72 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


aaa aa τ σΚΕοὦΚεο’ἍουηΆ το π- “τὸ  ἸὙΕΌΞΕ ΕΝ 


8 No doubt supplied by E. V. is arbitrary and unnecessary.—M.] 

9. No reason why μεμενήκεισαν should be rendered “ continued,” since “abode” makes as good sense 
tee as other forms of the same verb in other places. Better to render μένειν uniformly abide.— 
M. 

[19 German: “ but—that they might be made manifest,” 7. ὁ. nothing is supplied, although the context re- 


quires something to be supplied. E. V. supplies “they went out,” Beza, following the Syriac “ egresst 
sunt ex nobis,” Wakefield: “this was done,” Newcome, “this hath come to pass,” Lillie “it was,” etc. 


See below in Exeget. and Critical —M.] 


ΠῚ German: “that not all are from us” better than the more inferential rendering adyocated by Lillie 
“that none of them are of us,” and the less correct translation of Εἰ. V. “ that they were not all of us.” 


Verse 20. 
versative force —M, 

3 German omits the Article before unction and renders ‘‘and ye haye unction.”—M. | 

14 German omits “ ye;” B. omits kat before 0 iéa7e.—M.] { 

15 B. Sin read πάντες instead of πάντα, August. “Ut ipsi vobis mantfesti sint.” 

Verse 21. [ὃ German: “and that every thing which is lie is not out of the truth,” but the rendering of E. V. is ahappy 
inferential translation of the Greek idiom.—M. | 

Verse 22. [17 German: “who is the liar.” The Article is emphatic here and must be retained.—M. ] 

18 German: “ This is the antichrist, who.” 

Verse 23. [19 German: “ Every one that denieth;” omnis qui, Vulg. Aug. Caly. Bengel, and *‘ every one that” Green- 
field, Allioli, de Wette, Lillie —M.] 

(2° German: “ Hath also not the Father.” Better render with Rhemish and most foreign versions “neither 
hath he the Father.”—M.]} 

21 A. B. C. Sin. [Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. Buttm. Wordsw. Lillie—M.] have the final clause: “6 ὃ o- 
Aoy@v τὸν vidv καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει," 
well as by John’s fondness of antithesis. [ὃ μολογ ὦν however should be rendered “ confesseth” and 
not “ acknowledgeth ” as in Εἰ. V.—M. 

Verse 24. [33 German: “ You, that which ye have heard from the beginning, let that abide in you.” In this rendering 
οὖ ν is left out; but the emphatic you, in the sense of as for you, is decidedly in favour of the German 
rendering; translate, “ you, let that which ye have heard from the beginning, abide in you.”—A. B. C.~ 
Sin. Vulg. al. οἱ οὖν. M.] 

[33 German: “If that abide in you which ye have heard from the beginning, ye also shall abide in the Son 
and in the Father.” The three-fold rendering of μένω in one verse: “abide, remain, continue,? 
adopted in E. V. should by all means be avoided. Lillie calls this sacrificing of the simple beauty and 
force of the original to “a great number of good English” words an “ unprofitable exuberance.”’—M.] 

Verse 25. [39 German: “And this is the promise which He Himself;” αὐτός. 
promisa—M.] 

2 A.C. Sin. read ἡμῖν. The context warrants the transition to the Plural. 

[39 German: “ The eternal life.” 
and the order “‘ life eternal” seems preferable; see on the last point Εἰ. V. Matth. xxv. 46; Jno. iy. 36; 
xvii. 8; Rhemish version, Wakef. Macknight, Berleburg Bible, and Lillie —M.] 

Verse 26. [7 πλανώντων ὑμᾶς, “who would deceive you.” “The context (vy. 20. 21. 27) shows that this is a case 
of the Present ‘de conatu, ὃ. ὁ. an endeavour or purpose’ (Buttm. ὁ 187. n. 10), and so it is generally un- 
derstood.” Lillie —M.] 

Verse 27. [28 German: “And you—the ointment which ye received from Him, abideth in you.”’—M. 

39 τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσμα is the reading of C. Sin., many versions (Syr. unctio qu est a Deo) and fathers in- 
stead of τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα A. B.G. K. and the Greek fathers.—Cod. Sin. reads really πνεῦμα after- 
wards corrected into xptoualor χάρισμα); Breads χάρισμα. [But both in point of authority 
and in point of sense τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα seems to be the right reading. German, following the less 
authentic reading, renders “but as the ointment of Him;” E. V. follows τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα.--Μ.]} 

δκαὶ ἀληθές éEott—and is true, better than “and is truth” of E. V.—M. 

$1 The reading μένετε A. B. C. Sin. is on external and internal grounds preferable to μεν εἴ τε [G. K. al. 
Tisch.—M. 

Verse 28. 82 A. B.C. Sin. ) ead ἵνα ἐὰν instead of ἵνα ὅταν [G. K. Theoph. Oecum. Tisch_—M.]} 


[3 German: “And.” There seems to be no necessity for “but,” although «ai may here haye slightly ad- 


οὕτος has demonstrative force.—M.] 


and it is required by the parallel passage 2 Jno. 9 as 


The reference seems to be to an oral 


The supplement in E. V. is hardly necessary, the Article is indispensable 


[38 German: “ shall be manifested” decidedly preferable both for the sake of uniformity and on doctrinal 
grounds (“the agency and love of the Father in the second as well as the first coming of the Saviour” 
Lillie) to “when He shall appear” E. V—M.] 

34 σχῶμεν.--Β and Cod. Sin. give it as a correction of ἔχω μεν. 

[35 German: “and not be put toshame away from Him in His coming.” Calvin: Pudefiamus ab ejus presen- 
tid; Steph. ab eo discedamus pudefacti; Hammond: “Turned with shame from Him;” Green and 
Bloomfield: “shrink from Him with shame;” Peile: “put to confusion of face as being cast away from 


Him.” 
coming.” —M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


The connection. The groundwork on which 
this portion of the Epistle rests is contained in 
the individualized addresses (vy. 12-14), intro- 
ducing both warning and consolation against the 
love of the world (y. 15-17), as well as in the 
subsequent warning and ‘consolation against 
antichrist (vy. 18-28). As the former particu- 
larly connected with the final clause νενικήκατε 
τὸν πονηρόν whose kingdom is ὁ κόσμος, so this 
connects with ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, τὸν πατέρα, 
ὁ λόγος τοῦ ϑεοῖν ἐν ὑμῖν μένει. The opening words 
ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν in the sequel (ν. 18) connect also 
with ὁ κόσμος παράγεται (vy. 17). This portion 
which began (ch. i. 5 sq.) with the Light-Being 
of God and the Light-walk of believers, con- 
cludes with a warning against the lie which is 
directed against the fundamental pillar of eternal 
truth, the glory of Christ, and an exposure of its 


Wordsworth: “Driven to shame from Him;” Lillie: “Shamed away from Him at His 


attempt to annihilate the promise of eternal 
life. The address παιδία, vy. 18, applies to all the 
readers of the Epistle, and requires us to con- 
sider the sequel addressed to the whole Church 
(contrary to Bengel). It is incomprehensible 
that Ebrard on account of the peculiarly childlike 
character of this section should hold the opinion 
that the reference is only to the little ones, to 
children. 

The last hour, v. 18. This important and 
difficult idea, which is liable to many interpreta- 
tions and has been variously understood, can 
only be understood and explained with reference 
to the whole wsus loguendi current and the sum- 
total of clear views on the subject contained in 
the New Testament. It is not sufficient to refer 
the reader to Lange on Matth. xxiv., Moll on 
Heb. i. 1, and Fronmiiller on 1 Pet. i. 5. 20. 
Compare particularly Riehm, Lehrbegriff des 
Hebriierbriefs, pp. 72 sqq.; 204 sqq., and Diis- 
terdieck ad /oc.—The representation of two ages 
of the world is rooted in the Old Testament idea 


CHAP. II. 18-28. 


78 


D7 DAN. which constantly recurs in 


prophetical passages, beginning with the blessing 
of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 1), especially in Jeremiah, 
denotes ‘‘the most distant future, beyond which 
the eye cannot penetrate” (Hitzig on Mich. iv. 
1), and is therefore well rendered by ‘‘in the 
end of the days.” The prophets use it almost 
exclusively to denote the Messianic times. The 
LXX. translate it ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις (Is. 11, 2), 
ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων Tov ἡμερῶν (Gen. xlix. 1), ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου 
τῶν ἡμερῶν (Numb. xxiv. 14), ἐπ’ ἐσχάτῳ τῶν 
ἡμερῶν (Deut. iv. 80), ἔσχατον τῶν ἡμερῶν (Deut. 
xxxi. 29). Hence comes primarily the ἑαῤηιμαϊ- 


cal and rabbinical idea of the ΓΙ δ» and 
the N37 pbiy; inside these two ages of the 


world are the Mert imo. the days of 


the Messiah, the Messianic age proper, which is al- 
ternately counted with either age of the world, 
and consequently may be either after or before 
the end of the days, or the end of the days itself. 
The Lord Himself distinguishes ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι 
from ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι (Matth. xii. 80), ἐν τῷ καιρῷ 
τούτῳ from ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τῷ ἐρχομένῳ (Mark x. 90; 
Luke xviii. 80); and this distinction, as well as 
Luke xx. 84, sq. (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου γαμοῦσιν 
—ol δὲ καταξιωϑέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν καὶ 
τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν) show most plainly 
that the earthly development-period of the king- 
dom of God preceding the second coming of Christ 
in glory, and beginning with the first coming of 
Christ in the flesh, belongs to the first age of the 
world, and that the future time is the time of the 
completed kingdom of God. According to this 
ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα (Jno. vi. 89, 40, 44, 54; xi. 24; 
xii. 48) is the day of the resurrection of the 
dead and the judgment, the last day of the first 
age of the world and the transition to the 
second, The turning-point between both ages 
of the world is the time of Christ's return to judg- 
ment (Matth. xiii. 89 sq.; 49; xxiv. 38; xxviii. 
20). Thus Paul also contrasts ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ 
with ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι, and the sufferings τοῦ viv 
καιροῦ with the μέλλουσα δόξα (Rom. viii. 18), 
and describes Christians as living ἐν τῷ νῦν 
aiéve looking for the blessed hope and the glo- 
rious appearing of the great God and our Sa- 
viour Jesus Christ (Tit. ii.12.13). The ἔσχαται 
ἡμέραι in which there shall come καιροὶ χαλεποὶ 
(2 Tim. 111. 1), and the ὕστεροι καιροί (1 Tim. iv. 
1), like the αἰῶνες οἱ ἐπερχόμενοι (Eph. ii. 7), de- 
note the period immediately preceding the 
second coming of Christ. While, according to 
Paul, Christians still live outwardly im the first 
age of the world, yet are they ethically beyond it 
and the character of this present age of the 
world is described by him as tainted with immo- 
ré@lity and alienation from God, Rom. xii. 2; 1 
Cor. ii. 6.8; iii. 18; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Gal. i. 4; Eph. 
li. 2; 2 Tim. iv 10. He regarded also the pre- 
sent age of the world as running on towards its 
end since the first coming of Christ; hence he 
speaks of τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων (1 Cor. x. 11) having 
set in. We have not to inquire here whether he 
regarded the second coming of Christ to be near 
at hand.—Peter considers his time as the ἔσχαται 


ἡμέραι (Acts ii, 17) and laid the first coming of 
Christ ἐπ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρώνων (1 Pet. i. 20 ef. v. 
δ: ἐν καιρξ ἐσχάτῳ or τῶν ἡμερῶν, 2 Pet. iii. 3 ef. 
Jude 18).—So also James: (v.13: ἐν ἐσχάταις 
juépatc).—In the Epistle to the Hebrews also 
the close of the first age of the world is described 
as beginning with the first coming of Christ (ch. 
i. 1), but the συντέλεια τῶν αἰώνων denotes the 
turning-point of the two ages of the world, ch. 
ix. 26, and this turning-point is more particu- 
larly described as found in the sacrificial death 
of Christ on account of its important conse- 
quences (ch. x. 14; xi. 39. 40), since that which 
is eternal, is now extant (Χριστὸς---ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν 
μελλόντων ἀγαϑῶν ch. ix. 11; ef. v. 14; x. 1. 18; 
vi. 5; xii. 22). The beginning of the new time 
has set in, but only the ideal and objective be- 
ginning; since the αἰὼν μέλλων as to the δύναμις 
is already extant in the redeemed, but will not 
enter into ἐνέργεια until the second coming of 
Christ (ch. xiii. 14), so that the first age of the 
world still continues outwardly and that conse- 
quently our time is only a transition-period; with 
respect to the ethical sense of these ideas we 
have here the point of contact between the Epis- 
tle to the Hebrews and the views of Paul.— 
John’s ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν must be understood as 
lying within the limits of these views. The use 
of ὥρα instead of ἡμέρα, the day which with God 
is equal to a thousand years (Ps. xc. 4; 2 Pet. 
iii. 8), indicates a peculiar feature, and the ab- 
sence of the Article leaves it undefined. We 
have to think of a period of time belonging to 
the last days or last times which exhibits their 
character in a concentrated form, and since the 
ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα in the Gospel adverts particularly 
to the κρίσις, the reference seems to be to pecu- 
liarly critical manifestations. If now we have to 
translate: ‘it is the last hour,” the reference to 
the antichrist and the antichrists is in admi- 
rable keeping with the announcements of the 
coming of false prophets and teachers for the 
purpose of temptation and trial, so that in them 
there already takes place a separation of true 
believers from false believers. Cf. Matth. xxiv. 
24 sqq.; 1 Tim. iv. 1 sqq.; 2 Tim. 111. 1 sqq.— 
Hence ὥρα is neither=the season of the year, the 
wintry season of the world (Scholiast IL), nor 
éoyaty=yelpiorn (Oecumen., Schottgen: tempora 
periculosa, pessima et abjectissima, Carpzov and 
others), which is also forbidden by 2 Timasiiieels 
Bengel’s explanation that it denotes the last hour 
of John’s old age (ultima, non respectu omnium 
mundi temporum, sed in antitheto puerulorum, ad pa- 
tres et yuvenes), is a singular make-shift in order 
to guard John from the error that his prediction 
of the last hour had not been fulfilled. Nor can 
ἐσχάτη ὥρα designate the time immediately pre- 
ceding the destruction of Jerusalem (Socinus, Gro- 
tius), for the last time is not to be taken with 
such chronological precision. Nor is there any 
warrant for the assertion of Huther, that John 
wrote with a presentiment of the second coming of 
Christ (an assertion based on what is said v. 8 
of the σκοτία and y. 17 of the κόσμος, that they 
παράγεται which simply marks the transitory 
character inhering in the σκοτία and the κόσμος), 
since he writes only under the impression and 
with a sense of the transitoriness of the powers 
of this first age of the world, and that he indi- 


74 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


cates thereby the nearness of Christ’s second 
coming (Liicke, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Gerlach, Ebrard, Huther). Hence we may say 
with Diisterdieck that ‘John did not wish to 
supply a chronological but only a real definition” 
[that is, one relating simply to the object — 
M.], which is clearly indicated by ἐὰν φανερώθῃ 
(v. 28), since ὅταν is hardly the true reading 
there. ‘The prophetical substance of the Apos- 
tolical declaration is true,” ‘‘ the extension of the 
time from the real beginning (the destruction of 
Jerusalem, which does not disconcert John, and 
of the import of which, with reference to the 
history and the judgment of the world, his mind 
is fully made up), to the actual end of beings” 
denotes rather no measure at all than one that is 
too short. The first Messianic transition-period 
inaugurated by the Saviour in the form of a ser- 
vant, governed by Him and terminating the first 
age of the world is the ἐσχάτη, during which 
men pass through peculiar troubles, perils and 
conflicts on to the promised advent of the second 
world-age of glory. In this transition-period 
there are however peculiar hours of develop- 
ment, one of which had come when John wrote 
his Epistle. The term ἐσχάτη ὥρα has therefore 
to be taken in a prophetical and eschatological 
sense; it has moreover an important bearing on 
the history of Christ's kingdom and constitutes a 
historical reference to the second coming of Christ 
as the commencement of the second world-age, 
but not a chronological reference to the time when 
the second coming is to take place.—Noteworthy 
is Calvin’s explanation: uliimum tempus, in quo 
sic complentur omnia, ut nihil supersit preter ulti- 
mam Christi revelationem, and with reference to 
the absence of the Article also that of Besser: 
the time before a special revelation of the judi- 
catory glory of Christ prefiguring the last hour 
before the universal final judgment.— 

The Antichrist and the Antichrists. vy. 18. 

1. The word ἀντίχριστος occurs only here, vy. 
22; iv. ὃ and 2 Jno. 7. and its meaning has to be 
ascertained first philologically and then exegeti- 
cally. 

2. ἀντὶ may mean both hostility and substitu- 
tion. In the former case it denotes the antago- 
nist of Christ, the antichrist, in the latter the 
pretender-Christ or pseudo-Christ. Thus ἀντίτυπος 
is a τύπος set in opposition to another τύπος, and 
ἀντίλυτρον a λύτρον, paid or given for something; 
so ἀντίϑεος in Homer, denotes godlike, but other 
authors use it in the sense of adverse to the gods ; 
one and the same word may then be used in both 
senses; but no word can have both meanings in 
one and the same place; hence we must not en- 
deavour to combine the ideas of anti-Christ and 
pretender-Christ as Huther maintains (‘the ene- 
my of Christ, who, under the lying appearance 
of being the true Christ, endeayours to destroy 
the work of Christ”), although it must be con- 
ceded that the enemy of Christ appears at the 
same time with the pretension of being able to 
supply His place, of becoming His substitute, and 
that the pretender-Christ does occupy His place 
in hostility to Him. But the ἀντίχριστοι mani- 
festly cannot be taken in this double sense. And 
still less allowable is it with Sander first to attach 

to the word in the Singular the sense of pseudo- 
Christ and mimic of Christ, and then immediately 


afterwards to make the Plural designate the 
enemies of Christ. We cannot get on purely 
philological considerations beyond the possibility 
of taking the word in one or the other of said 
senses. 

8. We have to hold fast the fact that the word 
denotes persons. This is required of the Plural 
ἀντίχριστοι in γ. 19: ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν, οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ 
ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν. But if the ἀντίχρισ- 
τοι are persons, then ἀντίχριστος must also be a 
person, for this is required by ἔρχεται. Hence 
Bengel’s expositionis incorrect: ‘‘Siveidvocabulum 
phrasis apostolica, sive sermo fidelium introduxit, Jo- 
hannes errores, qui oriri possent, previsurus, non modo 
antichristum, sed etiam antichristos vultdici ; et ubi 
antichristum vel spiritum antichristi vel decep- 
torem et antichristum dicit, sub singulari numero 
omnes mendaces et veritatis inimicos innuit. (Quem- 
admodumque Christus interdum pro christianismo 
(where?), ste antichristus pro antichristianismo 
sive doctrina et multitudine hominum Christo contra- 
ria dicitur. Antichristum jam tum venire, ita assen- 
titur Johannes, ut non unum, sed multos, id quod 
amplius quiddam et tristius esse censet, antichristos 
factos esse doceat. Szpe totum genus eorum, qui 
bonam aliquam aut malem indolem habent, singulari 
numero cum articulo exprimitur (Matth. xii. 35; 
xviii. 17. 29.).  Jgitur antichristus sive anti- 
christianismus ab extrema Johannis ctate (see 
above: the last hour—old age!) per omnem secu- 
lorum tractum se propagavit et permanet, donee mag- 
nus ille adversarius exoritur. This view is adopted 
by Lange, Baumgarten-Crusius, Besser and 
others. 

4. We have here before usa law of historical de- 
velopment, a fixed ordinance of the history of the 
kingdom. The point in question is the ἐσχάτῃ 
pa and the marks by which it may be known; 
the reference is to ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται and to 
ἀντίχριστοι γεγόνασιν, to that which has happened 
νῦν, to that which is still to be looked for and 
has been announced (7xotcate) : 

And as ye have heard (through the an- 
nouncement of the Apostles) that an anti- 
christ cometh, even now have there come 
into existence many antichrists (καὶ viv— 
yeyévacr).—It is by no means allowable to insert 
ita est before καθὼς ἠκούσατε (Bengel): nor must 
the Present ἔρχεται be put on aline with γεγόνασι, 
so that the antichrist now cometh and is present 
even as the others also have appeared; nor must 
ἔρχεται and γεγόνασι, made equal in point of time, 
be only so distinguished from each other that the 
former comes aliunde, while these have come 
ex nobis. Γεγόνασι, they are become, they have 
come into existence, denotes the antichrists as a 
historical product, on whom the surrounding 
powers operating in time have operated. Hence 
it is not equal to coeperunt esse (Erasmus) but to 
“they are become, they are existing.”’—Ebrard 
incorrectly renders épyera—=is future, although he 
correctly explains it by=will some day appear. 
The Future is implied in the idea of coming and 
the Present indicates the certainty of the event. 
[Huther: The Present ἔρχεται instead of the Fu- 
ture; it denotes the future as an event which is 
sure to occur.—M.]. Accordingly the avriypic- 
τοι exist before the ἀντίχριστος, who however is 
sure to follow them, and that which appears in 
the former, the προδρόμοις, only in an isolated, 


CHAP. II. 18-28. 


75 


---ππ--ρππ-͵ππππῆπππ͵͵πππππππ-π-π------- ——— See 


undeveloped and feeble form, is gathered together 
by the latter in his individual person, and deve- 
loped in a powerful form. In the course of time 
malice will so surely become intensified and op- 
position to Godand Christ will reach such a degree 
of development that the existence of many anti- 
christs warrants the certain result of a future con- 
centration and formation of this spirit in one per- 
son. 

5. The ἀντίχριστοι come out of the Christian 
Church, they have themselves been Christians 
before (ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν vy. 19); the antichrist, in 
like manner, will of course come forth from the 
ranks of the Christians, he will also be a man. 
Hence ἀντίχριστος is not Satan himself (Pseudohip- 
polytos, Theodoret); the idea of Satan becoming 
man is inexecutable, since the Eternal Word only, 
the Image of the Father, in which man has been 
created, can become man. 

6. The antichrists deny that Jesus is the Christ 
(v. 22; iv. ὃ; 2 Jno. 7);) that He did not come in 
the flesh, that He is not the Son of God, that He 
is not of God (ch. iv. 14sqq.; v. 5 sqq.; v. 20 sq.). 
The doctrine is the denial of the truth, the Jie, 
they themselves are Liars, and according to 
John viii. 44, the children of the devil, of the fa- 
ther of the lie (ch. iii. 3-10). The Greeks 
strikingly observe: ὁ ψεύστης, ἐναντίος Ov τῇ ἀλη- 
θείᾳ, ἦτοι τῷ Χριστῷ, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν (Theophy- 
lact) and ὁ ψεύστης τὸ τοῦ διαβόλου ὄνομα (Scho- 
liast 11.). The antichrist and the antichrists are 
to be taken ‘‘as expressly connected with Satan” 
(Diisterdieck), and the two words here denote 
not substitution, but hostility to Christ exhibited 
in the form of eminent strength; the antichrist is 
pre-eminently the instrument and tool of Satan. 
Hence we have to exclude the exposition of Ire- 
nus, Hippolytus, Cyrillus and others, that the 
antichrist was tentans semet ipsum Christum osten- 
dere, and mimicking Christ. 

7. The comparison of this passage with 2 
Thess. ii. 1 sq. (Hofmann, Heilige Schrift 1., p. 
307 sqq.) requires this explanation. The name 
ἀντίχριστος used by John corresponds with the 
description given by Paul, ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραι- 
ρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον ϑεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, to de- 
note his hostility with reference to his pretended 
ability to supply the place of God (ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς 
τὸν ναὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι 
ἐστὶν ϑεός). John contrasts the πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντι- 
χρίστου with the πνεῦμα τοῦ ϑεοῦ, while Paul calls 
him ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ ἄνομος, ὁ υἱὸς 
τῆς ἀπωλείας. His appearing also is preceded by 
an ἀποστασία, and he himself is the precursor of 
the παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. just as in John. 
But we must not overlook a difference belonging 
to this agreement. Johnspeaks in a more gene- 
ral way, and uses less definite terms than Paul, 
who gives more distinct prominence to the per- 
son and approach of the dreaded and dreadful 
one; but he also refers to τὸ κατέχον and 6 κατέχων 
as a power wielded by a living person, and speci- 
fies that for the benefit of the Church his progress 
will be arrested and his appearing delayed, thus 
pointing, like John, to a historical development. 
—Remembering all these particulars, we have, 
Jirst of all, to reject those expositions which limit 
the application of the subject to a solitary histo- 
rical fact or a single personage, and regard this 
statement of the Apostle in the light of a pro- 


phecy of a church-historical fact. Thus the 
Greek expositors, and many others (Augustine, 
Luther, Calvin, al.) after them apply it to here- 
tics or heresiarchs, e. g., to Simon Magu§, Cerin- 
thus, Ebion, the Gnostics, to Basilides, Valen- 
tinus, and others, the Nicolaitanes (Rev. ii. 6), 
to Diotrephes (3 John 9.), Hymeneus and Phi- 
letus (2 Tim. ii. 17), and Grotius actually applies 
it to Barcochba, Calov to Mohammed, Luther 
(Art. Schm. tract. de pot. et prim. pape, ἢ 39; ef. 
Melanchthon, Apol. Art VII. VIIL., 223; XV. 9 
18) to the pope, and Roman Catholics to Luther. 
All this is purely arbitrary and unwarranted, 
and not only depreciates the word of prophecy, 
but actually deprives it of the prophetical element, 
as if it had ceased to be valid. Secondly, we 
have also to reject the modern exposition (both 
that of rationalistic commentators and that of 
Liicke, de Wette and Neander) which insists upon 
Separating the idea, ‘that simultaneously with 
the development of Christianity, evil also would 
gradually increase in intensity, until having 
reached its culmination, it would be completely 
conquered by the power of Christ,” from the 
form as here indicated, and that the form, as the 
mere shell, might be dropped. On the contrary, 
both the idea and the form have to be held fast, 
for we have here the expression of a law ever re- 
curring in historical manifestations which be- 
longs to the development of the history of the 
Kingdom [of God] up to and until the end of 
the time of Messiah and the Church, and this ex- 
pression is so clearly and distinctly asserted that 
John feels warranted to draw the emphatic con- 
clusion: ‘'whence we know that there isa 
last hour.’”’ By the appearing of many anti- 
christs we may know and infer thence (ὅθεν) as 
from a distinct premise, that there is an onward 
progress in the direction of Christ’s coming, 
which is preceded by the concentration of the 
antichristian element, thriving and luxuriating 
of course in different persons according to its 
different forms of manifestation. [On the differ- 
ent views of the antichrist see Liinemann on 2 
Thess. ii. 1-12; p. 204 sqq., and Diisterdieck ad lo- 
cum; also Trench, Synonyms of the WN. aps 
145 sqq.—M. ]. 

Relation of the Antichrists to the Church. First 
there is noted the fact that, 

Ver. 19. From us they went out.—The 
most natural and primary meaning of ἡμῶν is that 
it designates the Apostle and his readers, conse- 
quently the Church, which is addressed by 
παιδία, and to be understood in ἠκούσατε. The 
reference is neither to the Jews (Grotius, Rickli), 
nor to the Apostles only (Spener, Besser), nor 
only to the Church with exclusion of the children 
(Ebrard). Apart from the form ἐξῆλθαν, which 
in this very verb is by no means uncommon in 
the New Testament (Winer, pp. 86, 87), the sense 
is various: prodire, exire, egredi, secedere. Two 
ideas play into each other: origin and separation, 
coming out and going away. The nature of the 
ἀντίχριστοι who are engaged in the ἀποστασία, not 
μεμενήκεισαν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, requires us to translate 
secesserunt, evaserunt (Augustine, Bede, Erasmus, 
Liicke, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Huther). Prodierunt 
(Vulgate, al.) misapprehends the origin of the 
antichrists, and denotes origin only. ἐξῆλθαν 
does not point to their development and origin, 


76 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


-_ rr —-rrere—er—r———————re——————————— 


but only to their separation, their apostasy, which 
ἐξ ἡμῶν requires us to regard as their apostasy 
from the Church; γεγόνασιν, to be sure, shows that 
they are within that Church from which they 
have now separated. This is brought out ‘by 
the emphatic position of ἐξ ἡμῶν before the verb” 
(Huther), for ἐξ ἡμῶν in connection with the verb 
ἐξέρχεσθαι merely denotes the circle, the fellow- 
ship from which they have separated. ‘John 
does not indicate the extent to which that formal 
separation has been carried; still ἐξζλθαν implies 
that they had not only opposed the Apostolical 
doctrine (Beza: ‘‘ad mutationem non loci, sed doc- 
trine pertinet”’), but also those who, by the faith- 
ful preservation of the unadulterated Gospel, had 
proved themselves to be children of God” (Huther). 

But they were not of us.—Hlva: ἐξ ἡμῶν 
indicates the internal relation. Here the idea of 
origin combines with that of appertaining and 
affinity. ᾿Αλλὰ (Winer, pp. 462, 472, ἀλλα) de- 
notes the strong opposition of ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν and 
ἐξ ἡμῶν ἦσαν. While the former simply betokens 
external origin and coming out from, the latter 
indicates internal relationship; they were the 
former, not the latter; the aforesaid fact ex- 
pressly denies this internal relation. Both origin 
(coming from) and relationship (affinity, apper- 
taining to) are contained in εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, ἐκ 
τοῦ κόσμου (v. 16) and in ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ (Jno. 
viii. 42; xvi. 28; while ἀπὸ ϑεοῦ, Jno. xiii. 3, and 
mapa τοῦ ϑεοῦ, xvi. 27, denote only the former.) 
[Augustine: Quandoquidem adhuc curatur corpus 
Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et sanitas perfecta non 
erit nisi in resurrectione morluorum ; sic sunt in cor- 
pore Christi, quomodo humores mali. Quando evo- 
muntur, tune revelatur corpus: sie et mali quando 
exeunt, tune revelatur ecclesia. Et dicit quando eos 
evomit atque projicit corpus, ex me exierunt humores 
isti, sed non erant ex me. Quid esl, non erant ex me ? 
Non de carne mea precisi sunt, sed pectus mihi pre- 
mebant dum inessent.’—M.]. But John here 
sharply contrasts the two and excludes the one 
by the other, adding moreover, 


For if they had been of us, they 
would have abode with us.—Consequently, 
they hat been μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, they had belonged to the 
Christians, they had lived among and with the 
Christians, they were Christians outwardly and 
to be considered as such. Although they had 
been μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, they were not ἐξ ἡμῶν, for in that 
case they would have abode μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν. On the 
very frequent omission of the augment in the 
Pluperfect see Winer, p. 85. On the dogmatical 
and ethical import of this passage, see below in 
Doctrinal and Ethical, especially sub. Nos. 4. 5. 

But—that they might be made manifest, 
that not all are of us.—Here is an imper- 
fect and involved construction. After ἀλλὰ we 
have of course to supply the thought suggested 
by the previous words: but they did not abide 
with us, that—(Huther, Winer, Grammar p. 333. 
where may be found the corresponding illustra- 
tions Jno. xiii. 18: ἐξελεξάμην, ἀλλ᾽ (ἐξελεξάμην) 
iva;—Jno. xv. 25: μεμ'σήκασιν----, ἀλλ᾽ (μεμισηκασινῚ 
ἵνα----. In general γέγονε τοῦτο would have to be 
supplied, which would however depend on the 
context for its meaning, as in Jno. i. 8: ἀλλ᾽ 
(ἦλθεν) wa—; ix. 8: ἀλλ᾿ (but he was born 
blind) tva—. But de Wette has very correctly 
pointed out that ¢wo sentences are here inter- 


laced, and Huther has rightly arranged them 
thus: 1, iva φανερωηῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξ ἡμῶν, 2, 
ἵνᾳ φανερωηῇ ὅτι οὐκ εἰσί πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν. The seces- 
sion of the antichrists has taken place and con- 
stitutes an event that does not take place without 
some providential design, an event in which God 
the Lord takes an active part both as Ruler and 
Judge, hence iva, to the end that, in order that. 
The Apostle’s design is to mark a purpose and not 
a consequence, as Lange and Paulus maintain 
without any reason for their view. The pur- 
pose is first, that they shall manifest themselves 
as those who do not sustain to us an inward and 
ethical relation of kinship and appertainment, 
and secondly, that it shall become manifest in gen- 
eral that not all those who are in the Church 
and outwardly belong to it (ueW ἡμῶν, in ecclesia) 
do also belong to it inwardly (ἐξ ἡμῶν, d2 ecclesia). 
We have to connect ov πάντες in the sense of non- 
nulli; for if we were to connect οὐκ εἰσὶν so that’ 
the negation would belong to the predicate, 
John would have written οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξ ἡμῶν πάντες, 
and we should be obliged to explain. ‘All are 
not of us,” or ‘‘none is of-us.”? In this case 
there would be something predicated of the anti- 
christs, they would be the subject in πάντες. 
Butthis is not allowable on account of the position 
of the words. The meaning is rather: ἐς Not all 
are of us, only some, although the majority 
are of us.” But this cannot be predicated of 
the antichrists; for they are not all true, living 
church-members, none of them belongs truly to 
the Church. But their sece ling furnishes actual 
proof that not all Christians (bapt'z1ti, vocati) 
are and remain real Christians (electi, fideles). 
“While in φανερωϑῶσιν the seceders only are con- 
sidered as the subject, the conception is enlarged 
in the clause ὅτε---ἡ κῶν, and the Apostle declares 
in respect of the former, that in general not all 
who belong outwardly to the Christian Church, 
are really members of the same (Diisterdieck). 
It is not allowable to understand ov πάντες with 
Socinus in the sense of nulli: the connection is 
right, the explanation is wrong. [Wordsworth: 
“They all pretend to be of us, and the heathen 
confound them with us. But their secession from 
us, and opposition to us, clearly prove that they 
are not all of us. Some false teachers [or false 
brethren M.] there are still who propagate here- 
sies in the Church. They are tares in the field, 
but as long as they are zn the field, it is not easy 
to distinguish them from the wheat. They are 
not of us, but they are not manifested as such by 
going out from us. But the going out of those 
who have left us, and who resist us, is a manifest 
token to all men, that they and their associates 
are not all of us, as they profess to be, and as the 
heathen suppose them to be; and as even some of 
the brethren in the Church imagine that they 
are, and are therefore deceived by them. By 
their going out they are manifested in their true 
light; and by their opposition to us Truth is 
distinguished from Error and Error from Truth.” 
—M.}. 

Testimony of the gifts of believers. vv. 20. 21. 

Ver. 20. And you have ointment from 
the Holy One and know all things.— 
The address ὑμεῖς has regard to the readers, to 
the Church, from which the antichrists have se- 
ceded. They are referred to a gift: ἔχετε. 


CHAP. II. 18-28, 


17 


SSS 


This gift is χρίσμα, unguentum, not unctio as ex- 
plained by Vulgate, Augustine, Luther, de Wette, 
Sander, al. It is chrism. <‘‘Alludit appellatio 
CHRISMATIS ad ANTICHRISTI nomen’’ (Bengel). 
[They have the chrism from Christ.—M. ]. Thus 
John came to use this word which besides this 
place occurs only in v. 27. In obedience to the 
command of God kings (1 Sam. x. 10; xvi. 13, 
14; Ps..xlv. 8),, priests (Ex. xxix. 7; xxx. 31) 
and prophets (Is. Ixi. 1) were anointed, and 
ointment is both figuratively, and in the ordered 
act itself, a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Thus 
Christ is anointed (Acts iv. 27) and that with the 
Holy Spirit (Acts x. 38), and thus Christians also 
are anointed. The chrism or ointment will 
have to be understood as the Holy Spirit and 
ὑμεις ἔχετε χρίσμα reminds the readers of the 
great gift which makes them priests, kings and 
prophets, the γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, 
ἔθνος αγιον,» 1 Pet. ii. 9; ef. Ex. xix. 6; Is. xliii. 
20. 21. This gift of the Holy Spirit must not be 
made the ‘‘divinum beneficium cognoscendi ipsas res 
divinas, quatenus homini est opus” (Socinus), or 
the ‘‘auditio evangelit, institutio christiana” (Epis- 
copius, Rosenmiiller), or the ‘‘docendi auctori- 
tas”’ (Sauler), or ‘‘the true tradition concerning 
Christ distinguished by its being primitive, ori- 
ginating with the Apostles and vitally propa- 
gated” (Kostlin, Lehrbegriff, p. 243), or the ‘“ car- 
ἐξα que diffunditur in cordibus nostris per spiritum 
sanctum” (Didymus). And _ this having is a 
gift ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου, they have received what 
they have; hence v. 27: τὸ ypiowa—éAaBere. 
Christ is called ἁγνός ch. 111. 8 and δίκαιος ch. 
ii. 2; in Jno. vi. 69 He is called: ὁ ἄγιος τοῦ 
Geov, Acts 111. 14: ὁ ἅγιος καὶ δίκαιος, Rev. iii. 
7: ὁ ἅγιος ὁ ἀληϑινός. The primary reference 
therefore seems to be to Christ who received 
the Spirit without measure (Jno. iii. 34), and 
baptized with the Holy Ghost (Jno. i. 33) and 
sends Him from the Father (Jno. xv. 26; Acts 
ii. 33) and hence the idea is that the Χριστός 
makes the ypiorove.—’ Απὸ τοῦ ἁγίου consequently 
denotes neither God the Father (Socinus, Episco- 
pius, Rickli, Neander, Besser, al.) nor the Holy 
Ghost (Didymus, Grotius).—It must be remem- 
bered that nothing is said here of the time when 
they received this gift nor of the means by which 
it was conveyed to them, but we read simply: 
ἔχετε. Hence there is no warrant for finding 
here an allusion to baptism (Augustine, Bede, 
Oecumenius), and the inference of the ungenu- 
ineness of the Epistle from the supposition of an 
allusion toa usage connected with baptism intro- 
duced at a later period, is wholly unjustifiable 
(Baur). [The argument for an allusion to bap- 
tism, rests on the hypothesis that this whole sec- 
tion is addressed to maidca, pueruli, children, 
who received the gifts of the Holy Spirit in their 
baptism; it is then by implication extended to 
adults, and the use of chrism in baptism, a prac- 
tice which does not belong to the Apostolical Age, 
seems to have been occasioned by this passage. 
Bengel: ‘‘Ham unctionem spiritualem habent τὰ 
παιδία, pucruli: namgue cum baptismo, quem susce- 
perunt, conjunctum erat donum Spiritus Sancti, cujus 
significandi causa ex hoc loco deinceps usu receptum 
esse videtur, ut oleo corpora baptizatorum ungeren- 
tur.”—M.]. It is more allowable to connect with 
Υ. 24 cf. vy. 18, and to refer to the preaching of the 


word of God (Diisterdieck). We read simply 
‘ye have—! Thus John reminds his readers of 
an important and responsible gift from which they 
might derive comfort and enjoyment in opposition 
to the antichrists, but which they ought also to 
keep, use and show against these adversaries. 
Hence the thought is introduced by καὶ, as John 
is wont to do, without indicating an antithesis 
which is contained in the matter itself; his object 
being to develop his argument by way of comfort 
and exhortation. [It is doubtful whether there 
is even an adversative implication in the thought, 
for John surely did not want to inform his 
readers that because they had the χρίσμα they 
were the opposite of the antichrists. I do not 
mean that ὑμεῖς is not antithetical, but doubt 
whether καὶ is intended to mark an emphatic an- 
tithesis; in which case the Apostle would most 
probably have used dé or dispensed with the par- 
ticle altogether. So Huther.—M.]. There is 
no reason at all to discover here with Semler a 
‘‘captatio benevolentiz,” or with a Lapide an apo- 
logy for the shortness of the Epistle; and still 
more objectionable is the view of Lange that ‘a 
certain anxious care is unmistakable which puts 
forth even rhetorical efforts;” nor is Calvin right 
in saying: ‘‘modeste excusat apostolus, quod eos 
tam sollicite admonet, ne putent oblique se perstringi, 
quasi rudes ignarosque eorum, que probe tenere debu- 
erant.” The further particular 

And know all things denotes the immediate 
gain they derive from this gift. Bengel rightly 
explains ‘‘et inde.” Πάντα is evidently neuter. 
The Syriac translates therefore falsely ‘‘ommes.”? 
Although Calvin rightly says of πάντα: “omnia 
non unwwersaliter capi, sed ad preesentis loci cireum- 
stantiam restringi debet,” we must. not restrict it 
with Bengel to ‘ea, quze vos scire opus est: hoc re- 
sponso repellendi erant seductores.” Still less must 
it be applied with Estius to the Chureh, as know- 
ing all things, whereas individual Christians 
know only implicite if they hold to the Church 
[He says: ‘‘Habetis episcopos et presbyteros, quo- 
rum cura ac studio vestre ecclesie satis instruct 
sunt in tis que pertinent ad doctrine christian veri- 
tatem.”—M.]. he reference, according to y. 21 
and agreeably to Jno. xvi. 13: τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀλη- 
ϑείας ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληϑείᾳ πάσῃ cf. ch. xiy. 
26) is rather to πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήϑειαν (so Huther 
and most expositors). The sentence οἴδατε τὴν 
ἀλήϑειαν, ν. 21 is wholly=oidare τὰ πάντα. 

Ver. 21. I have not written unto you, 
because ye know not the truth, but be- 
cause ye know it.—Eypava refers to the 
words immediately preceding y. 19 [that is to 
what the Apostle had just said concerning the 
antichrists—M.], and not to the Gospel, as 
Ebrard arbitrarily asserts. Not ignorance or 
want of knowledge on the part of the Church in- 
duced the Apostle to write this Epistle, on the 
contrary it was their knowledge and ability to 
form a right judgment of what was transpiring 
among them which prompted him to indite this 
Epistle, anxious as he was to foster and stimulate 
the truth possessed by his Church. Lorinus: 
‘non ut vos hee doceam, sed ut doctos confirmem.”?— 
᾿Αλήϑεια is “the truth as announced by the Apos- 
tles, determining the whole walk in the light of 
believers (ch. i. 8; ii. 4), begetting all love, 
giving life and founded on Christ (v. 23 sqq-). 


78 


Whatsoever falls within the compass of this truth 
is the object of Christian knowledge, all this is 
known by believers” (Diisterdieck). 

And that every thing which is lie is 
not of the truth.—Kai 67 is not connected 
with ἔγραψα: and because—as if indicating the 
motive which prompted, the Apostle to write this 
Epistle, but the sentence depended on the second 
οἴδατε and is an object-sentence codrdinated with 
αὐτήν: ye know it (the truth)—and that—. 
Thus render almost all commentators. Hence 
springs the question (v. 22) τίς ἐστίν ὁ ψεύστης ; 
John assumes that they know who is the liar, as 
well as what and whence the lie is. Here εἶναι 
ἐκ τῆς ἀληϑείας denotes not only origin but also 
appurtenance conditioned and defined by the 
origin. Of course πᾶν---οὐκ must not be ex- 
plained here as a Hebraism (Grotius and al.)= 
οὐδέν, since οὐκ evidently belongs to the predi- 
cate, but—every lie is not out of the truth, which, 
however, amounts to=no lie is out of the truth. 
The reference to the antichrists is plain and the 
sense manifest: every thing which is lie neither 
originates from the truth, nor can it remain 
with the truth; it is not matter of complaint or 
of surprise that the antichrists with their lies 
and denials are seceding. Ψεύδος consequently 
is not only error, but the distinct opposite of the 
truth, nor is it the abstract put for the concrete, 
viz.: the false teachers (Lange). Our Lord Him- 
self tells us whence the lie originates, it is from 
the devil (Jno. viii. 44). The truth is from God 
and full of God, and therefore incompatible with 
any and every lie. [Diversity of origin renders 
the truth and the lie incompatibles. Christ is the 
truth (Jno. xiv. 6). Lorinus: ‘Lex vero non nisi 
verum sequitur et verum vero consonat.”’—M.]. All 
knowledge and ability to form a right judgment 
of moral phenomena are founded on the χρῖσμα, 
the Holy Spirit, consequently on a gift, even the 
gift which begins with sanctifying the will and 
renewing the heart. Sanctification leads to illu- 
mination. This points to the powerful exhorta- 
tion which accompanies the consolation. 

The substance of the antichristian lie. vv. 22. 23. 

Ver 22. Who is the liar but he that 
denieth that Jesus is the Christ ?—The in- 
terrogative form marks the vivacity with which 
John passes from the general abstract (πᾶν ψεῦδος) 
to the definite concrete (ὁ ψεύστης) as in ch. vy. 4, 
5. [Huther.] There is here surely no reference 
to children (Ebrard). Hence Bengel rightly ex- 
plains: ὁ vim habet ad abstractum vy. 21=quis est 
plains: ὁ vim habet ad abstractum 21=quis est 
illius mendacii reus?” The Article is by all means 
to be retained (Luther translates wrongly: who 
is a liar? [also E. V.—M.]) and to be explained 
as bringing out with emphatic distinctness the 
idea ‘the liar κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν 7. ὁ. he in whom the lie 
appears in concrete form—d avtiypioro¢” (Huther). 
It must not, however, be restricted to one indivi- 
dual besides whom there is none like him, but 
rather be taken generically or collectively with 
reference to the genus of antichristians, like ὁ 
νικῶν in ch. v. 5 (Diisterdieck); πᾶν ψεῦδος of 
course concentrates in him, if we exclude lies in 
other spheres, 6. g. those of the natural sciences, 
history or jurisprudence; here we have to do 
with the sphere of religion, with church-life. All 
comparative explanations dilute the conception 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


sec en a ; τι ΄ὃῬ..ῬψἮΞῬΌἌςἨ-ς-.-ῬῬἩῬἙ-ρ--Ξὄ-..ςα»-...:.ὄ 


of the Apostle; under this head we may enume- 
rate those of Calvin (‘‘nisi hoc censeatur menda- 
cium, aliud nullum haberi posse’), Socinus (* men- 
dacium quo nihil possit esse majus’’), Grotius 
ee potest esse major impostor ?”), Episcopius 
‘‘enormitas mendacii’’), J. Lange (‘*mendax pre- 
cipuus et periculosior?”’), de Wette (**who deserves 
more the name of liar?’’).—Huther very justly 
says that Baumgarten-Crusius has altogether 
missed the Apostle’s meaning in his explanation: 
‘sWhat is an erroneous doctrine, if not ete.”’— 
In the sentence εἰ μὴ ὁ ἀρνούμενος, the term εἰ μ 
is=nisi, except; εἰ ov, δὲ non would be inapplica- 
ble (Winer, p. 499) cf. ch. v.5; Luke xvii, 18; 
Rom. xi. 15, etc. The negative οὐκ in the sen- 
tence: ὅτε Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστὸς might haye 
been omitted, since it is preceded by dpvoievoc; 
but the affirmation of the liar is fully indicated, 
although it is couched in the form of a negation; 
this is in perfect agreement with the genius of 
the Greek language. Similar terms are found 
Luke xx. 27; Gal. v.17; Heb. xii. 19; cf. Kih- 
ner, 11. p. 410; Winer, p. 582 6. The essential 
feature and the height of the lie of the antichrist 
is this: Jesus is not the Christ, the Saviour pro- 
mised by and come from the Father, the λόγος 
σὰρξ γενόμενος; this is the gnostic error which 
does not distinguish Jesus from Christ, but tears 
them asunder and thus constitutes the strongest 
antithesis to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The 
reference therefore is neither to the form of Jewish 
unbelief that Jesus is not omnium hominum patro- 
nus (Semler) nor to the two forms of heresy one 
of which denies that Jesus was the Eternal 
Word, and the other that the Hiernal Word be- 
came flesh (Besser following Tertullian), [who 
says: de Prescript. ο. 83: Joh. in ep. eos maxime 
antichristos vocat, qui Christum negarent in carne 
venisse et qui non putarent Jesum esse Filium Dei; 
illud Marcion, hoc Ebion vindicavit.’’—W ordsworth, 
following Ireneeus and Waterland, refers also to 
Cerinthus and his followers, who denied that 
Jesus was the Christ, dividing Jesus from Christ ; 
and they denied the Son, because they did not 
acknowledge that Jesws was personally united 
with the Word, the Eternal Son of God; nor that 
the Word was the only begotten of the Father; 
and so they disowned the divine Sonship of Jesus 
and Christ; and thus they denied the Father and 
the Son.’-—M.]. The reference is only to one 
lie. 

This is the antichrist who denieth the 
Father and the Son.—'0 avriypicroc here and 
ὁ ψεύστης in the preceding clause, are evidently 
identical, and for the very reason that the liar 
denies Christ [or as Huther puts it: the liar, 
who denies the identity of Jesus and Christ, is 
the antichrist.—M.]. John adds ‘a new parti- 
cular, exhibiting the wholly fatal consequence of 
that antichristian lie,” (Diisterdieck) to this name 
in the following clause: ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα καὶ 
τὸν υἱόν ; here, to use the terse language of Luther, 
John knocks the bottom out of the barrel.—The 
antichrist denies also the Father. First he de- 
nies Christ and then proceeds to deny that He is 
the Son of and with the Father until he reaches 
the extreme position of denying the Father Him- 
self. The Χρίστος belongs to history, to the eco- 
nomy of salvation. The idea υἱός reaches further, 
even down to the innermost Being of God; the 


CHAP. II. 18-28. 


70 


denial of the Son violates the very Being of God, 
consequently the Father and thus far must it 
come with one who denies Christ. In Jesus ap- 
peared as Christ, as the Saviour of the world, the 
Son of the Father full of grace and truth, the 
Eternal Word which is from the beginning, and 
in the Son is manifested the Being of the Father, 
His Spirit and His Love, so that the knowledge 
of the Father is impossible without the knowledge 
of the Son. Hence he who denies Christ is led 
to the point that he has an ideal conception of 
God of his own making, an εἴδωλον, as Huther 
puts it, but not the true God. [Huther, to whom 
Braune is indebted for the thought, puts the logi- 
cal sequence more lucidly than the latter; he 
says: He who denies the identity of Jesus and 
Christ, denies first the Son, for the Son is none 
other than Ἰησοῦς ὃ Χριστός (neither an Aeon 
called Christ who did not become man, nor Jesus 
who is not Christ, or according to Jno. i. 14, who 
is not the Logos); but whoso denies the Son, de- 
nies also the Father not only in as far as Father 
and Son are logically convertible terms, but be- 
cause the Being of the Father manifests Itself 
only in the Son and because all true knowledge 
of the Father is conditioned by the knowledge of 
the Son, so that the God of those who deny the 
Son is not the true God, but a false creation of 
their own thoughts—an εἴδωλον .---Μ. 1. 

Ver. 23. EHvery one that denieth the 
Son, hath also not the Father [neither hath he 
the Father |.—Here is the progression from deny- 
ing (ἀρνεῖσϑαι) to having (ἔχειν), and from the par- 
ticular (ὁ wetoryc) to the general (7a¢).— Apvot- 
μενος evidently cannot be without an object, so 
that we have to connect πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν, 
but not: every one that denieth hath not the Son 
also (hath not) the Father; neither ὁ ἀρνούμενος 
nor the immediately succeeding 6 ὁμολογῶν can 
be independent subjects, and πατέρα joined to 
υἱὸν cannot be governed by ἔχειν as in 2 Jno. 9.— 
᾿Αρνεῖσϑαι τὸν υἱὸν signifies to disown the Eternal 
Word of the Father, the Logos (not only in Jesus 
who without the Logos is not and cannot be the 
Christ, but absolutely), and as such disowning im- 
plies not only mere ignorance or a limited under- 
standing, but also infirmity and impurity of the 
heart and the will, it points to a separation of 
man from the Son of God, so that it becomes an 
οὐκ ἔχειν, and contains and operates an οὐκ ἔχειν 
2 Jno. 9. It is therefore ‘‘habere in agnitione et 
communione (Bengel), a possession in vital fellow- 
ship (Diisterdieck) ; ‘‘habere in mente et fide, in ore 
et confessione”’ (a Lapide), ‘‘in faith and in love” 
(de Weite), ‘‘in knowledge, faith and confession” 
(Liicke). False are the expositions of Socinus 
(‘‘non habere opinionem, quod Deus sit”’), Grotius 
(‘‘non cognoscere Deum seu que sit ejus voluntas erga 
humanum genus”), Episcopius and others.—Ovdé 
emphatically denotes the further loss that one 
cannot separate oneself from the Son without 
giving up the Father. The Apostle now con- 
cludes affirmatively: 

He that confesseth the Son hath the 
Father also.—On ὁμολογεῖν see above on ch. ii. 
9. It is an act of the inner life and of a more 
intimate fellowship. Cf. Matth. x. 832; Rom. x. 10. 
[Diisterdieck: ‘In the denial of the Son is in- 
volved necessarily the denial of the Father, since 
the Father cannot be known without the Son, 

25 


and the Father cannot be received, believed on, 
loved, by any man, without the Son, or otherwise 
than through the Son, ¢. 6. the Son manifested in 
the flesh, the Christ, which is Jesus. So that in 
John’s development of the argument there are 
three essentially connected points: denial of the 
Christ, of the Son, of the Father. The middle 
link of the chain, the denial of the Son of God, 
shows how the denial of the Father is of necessity 
involved in the denial of Christ. And the cogency 
of this proof is made yet more stringent by an- 
other equally unavoidable process of argument. 
The antichristian false doctrine consists mainly 
in a negation, in the denial of the fundamental 
truth, that Jesus is the Christ. But in this ig 
involved the denial of the Essence of the Son as 
well as of the Father, and again in this denial is 
involved the losing, the virtual not having of the 
Son and of the Father. In the sense of John, 
we may say, taking the first and last steps of hig 
argument and leaving out the intervening ones: 
He who denieth that Jesus is the Christ, hath not 
the Father. And this necessary connection be- 
tween denying and not laving is perfectly clear, 
the moment we understand the ethical character, 
the living realism of John’s way of regarding 
the subject. As (v. 23) we cannot separate the 
knowledge and confession of the Christ, the Son, 
the Father, from the having, the real possession 
of, the practical fellowship with, the actual re- 
maining in the Son and the Father, so conversely, 
together with the denial is necessarily given the 
not having: together with the loss of the truth of 
the knowledge, the loss of the life which consists 
in that knowledge (Jno. xvii. 3). In such a con- 
nection, the confession of the truth is as essential 
on the one side, as the denial on the other. Each 
is the necessary manifestation of the belief or 
unbelief hidden in the heart. And this ὁμολογεῖν 
is not to be understood of the ““ confessio cordis, 
vocis et operis,”’ (Bede), but only as ch. i. 9, of the 
confession of the mouth (στόματι ὁμολογεῖται, Rom. 
x. 9, see Jno. xii. 42). It is parallel with φέρειν 
διδαχήν, 2 Jno. 7.10; and indicates the definite 
utterance of the doctrine which was made known 
by the Apostolic preaching, verse 24.’’—M. ]. 

Paternal exhortation founded on promises, vv. 24. 
25. 

Ver. 24. Ye, let that which ye have 
heard from the beginning, abide in you.— 
The sentence is anacoluthic. It is well explained 
by Theophylact: ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν οὕτως ὑμεῖς δὲ ἅπερ 
ἠκούσατε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς---φυλάττετε παρ ἑαυτοῖς.---ὑμεῖς 
therefore must not be connected with ἠκούσατο, 
as if it were a mere transposition; there would be 
no reason whatsoever for such a connection and 
no reason or necessity for such an emphasis. So 
in v. 27, and frequently. See Winer 3. 3. 28, 8; 
64, 2.d. Kihner II, 156. Hence the explana- 
tions of Bengel (‘‘antitheton est in pronomine; ideo 
adhibetur trajectio”), de Wette (“ὑμεῖς is really 
the subject of the relative sentence, placed be- 
fore”), and others are erroneous. Neither can 
ὑμεῖς be the pure Vocative (Ebrard, Paulus), nor 
be taken as an absolute Nominative (Myrberg).— 
The spurious οὖν after ὑμεῖς is not improper per se 
(Diisterdieck in opposition to de Wette with whom 
Huther agrees), for it is not an antithesis of what 
goes before, which is also assumed by Theophy- 
lact, because the preceding sentence closes af- 


80 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


firmatively thus: ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν, καὶ τὸν πα- ! speak with Calvin: dewm se totum nobis in 
τέρα ἔχει; and this is the ground of the present | Christo fruendum dedit, not dabit (Diisterdieck). 


exhortation.—On ὃ ἠκούσατε cf. v.7. John points 
to the apostolical announcement. ᾿Απ᾽ ἀρχῆς is 
more clearly defined by it (ex quo institui ccepistis 
in primis christiane religionis rudimentis, Beza, so 
also Liicke and others). There is no necessity to 
think of the prima ecclesizx nascentis tempora (Bede). 
The substance of ὃ, not ἃ, seems to be simple. 
But it is not enough to understand in general 
evangelium Christi (Calvin), or the truth that Jesus 
is the Christ (Huther, Liicke), or ϑεολογούμενον 
τὸν χριστὸν (Theophylact), but we had better un- 
derstand with Bengel (de patre et filio) the theo- 
logoumenon of the Father and the Son besides 
that fundamental truth (Diisterdieck), as indi- 
cated in the preceding verses.—’Ev ὑμῖν μενέτω 
describes éyew as a possession that has to be 
kept. The preposition must preserve its proper 
meaning; that which has been heard must “be 
in dwelling within as something that determines 
the life” (Neander). This meaning is also urged 
by the parallel passage Jno. xv. 1-10, where 
μένειν appears as a favourite expression of our 
Lord. Inthe sentence immediately following it 
is indeed impossible to render ἐν, with. The same 
holds good here. Hence Theophylact’s παρὰ and 
Luther’s with are false. The truth and doctrine 
as announced by the Apostles ‘‘is really to dwell 
in them, as a living power in their hearts” (Diis- 
terdieck), and if that takes place, ἐὰν ἐν ὑμῖν 
μείνῃ ὃ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἠκούσατε, 

If in you—emphatically placed first—abides 
that which ye have heard from the begin- 
ning, ye also shall abide in the Son and 
in the Father.—Bengel well observes: καὶ: 
vicissim. Diisterdieck hits the mark: ‘John de- 
notes by the position of καὶ before ὑμεῖς the pro- 
mised consequence which will correspond with 
the indicated destination while at the same time 
he makes prominent the fine turn contained in 
the thoughtful change of ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ and ὑμεῖς 
ἐν τῷ υἱῷ peveire.”” The reciprocal effect of the 
Word abiding in you and of the Church abiding 
in Christ does not refer to the origin of the rela- 
tion of the Church and of her conduct, but only 
to the further development of the same. But the 
expression and its order intimate that the word 
must first be brought, preached and explained, 
and then be heard, received and kept, and that 
it must have found in individual Christians an 
element in which it is vitally efficient, even as it 
is full of life, in order to enable them to have 
(ἔχειν) and to live in Christ as their element. ἐν 
τῷ υἱῷ stands naturally before καὶ τῷ πατρὶ because 
the Son is the Mediator of this life-fellowship. 
Hence Theophylact’s exposition, based on Jno. 
xvii. 2. 21: κοινωνοὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσεσθε, goes hardly far 
enough. The life of believers must really and 
essentially be rooted in’God, derive nourishment, 
grow and mature to completeness from Him. 
Faith has not only brought news and intelligence 
and become acquainted with God, but has entered 
into personal intercourse with Him and carries 
away from, Him the separate gifts, benefits and 
powers. The possession of this life is not left to 
the distant future, although the life is an eternal 
life, but the object of Christian hope in respect 
of its perfection and at the same time something 
present and the object of present experience; to 


Besides the principal passage Jno. xv. 1 sqq. the 
following places are very similar Jno. vi. 56; 
xvii. 23; Gal. ii. 20; 1 Cor. iii. 16; Eph. iii. 17. 
Hence the evaporating and diluting views of Gro- 
tius (‘‘conjunctissimi Patri et filio eritis, summo 
corum favore et amicitia fruemini”) Semler (‘sitis 
certt, nobis patere omnem hance felicitatem unice 
veram”) and others, as well as the scholastic, or- 
thodox views of Schmid (‘‘gratiosa filii et Patris 
inhabitatio”’) and J. Lange (‘‘unio cum deo mystica, 
communio cum eo jam inchoata, communicatio, per 
quam omnes regni divini dotes homini in usum sanctum 
et beatum contingunt”’), are insignificant to bring 
out the mind and the thoughts of John in their 
living fulness. 

Ver. 25. And this is the promise which 
He hath promised us, the life eternal.— 
Αὕτη ἐστίν should be explained here as in ch. ii. 
23. v. 11. 14 where the same words occur in the 
same position or as in ch. i. 5: "καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ; 
the reference is to the words which follow—rv 
ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. The substance or object of 
ἐπαγγελία is qualified here by a Substantive, 
while the substance or object of ἀγγελία or ἐντολῇ 
or μαρτυρία or παῤῥησία in the other passages is 
indicated by a clause connected with ὅτι or iva 
according to the context. Instead of the Accu- 
sative (Cw7v), the Nominative (ζω) ought to have 
been in apposition with ἐπαγγελία, but it was both 
attracted as apposition to the relative clause ἣν 
αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν annexed in the same case 
as7v. See Winer, p. 552 sq. Therefore manere 
in filio et patre is not the ἐπαγγελία and ἡ ζωὴ 
ἡ αἰώνιος not a pure apposition, so that the abiding 
itself is described as eternal life (ΑΝ ΕΚ, Brs- 
588), but ‘the life eternal is the promise” (so 
Huther and most commentators). The ἐπαγγελία 
is promissio, consequently not res promissa (J. 
Lange, Estius), as if it were true contrary to the 
genius and usage of Greek to add ὃἣν---ἐπηγγείλατο. 
Αὐτὸς designates Him ‘‘ who is the centre of this 
whole section” [Huther), that is Christ, and 
neither the Father (Hunnius), nor the Father 
through the Son (Socinus). But ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος, 
as the substance and object of the ἐπαγγελία of 
the Son, is not viewed as a gift remote from and 
subsequent to this promise, but as present and 
experienced, acquired and enjoyed wherever the 
pre-requisite of the promise is complied with, 
namely the abiding of the wordin you. Where 
the promise applies, it is forthwith fulfilling it- 
self. Therefore it is not said that we should ac- 
quire the life eternal, but that at which this promise 
is aimed is simply mentioned and connected by 
attraction with éryyyeiAaro.—Kai accordingly has 
here its ordinary force as copula, connecting this 
sentence with the one preceding, adding and ex- 
plaining something implied, but not yet particu- 
larly mentioned in the preceding sentence; the 
reference is to something directly connected with 
abiding in God; καὶ therefore must not be taken 
αἰτιολογικῶς (Oecumenius) or as designating the 
further consequence of holding fast the Gospel 
(Liicke). Diisterdieck strikingly observes: 
‘The present reality of eternal life in believers 
is no more annulled by the fact that it is not yet 
perfected in them than that inversely continued 
growth, a holy and fruitful development, and the 


CHAP. II. 18-28. 


final glorious perfection are excluded by its real 
possession.” 

Conclusion, with repeated warnings and exhorta- 
tions vv. 26-28. 

Ver. 26. These things I have written 
unto you concerning those who deceive 
you.—Here ταῦτα connected with ἔγραψα refers 
back to the preceding verses, and the object 
περὶ τῶν πλανώντων ὑμᾶς points back as far as v. 
18. The πλανῶντες ὑμᾶς are the antichrists, and 
denotes that they are dangerous per se, really and 
not only unsuccessfully dangerous, as is evident 
from y. 19. [It is doubtful whether the reference 
to v. 19 warrants the inference of their actual 
success in the case of those whom the Apostle is 
addressing. The deceivers themselves had se- 
ceded; that is all we can gather from y. 19, and 
that they were anxious to deceive others we learn 
from this verse, but nothing is said of their 
having been successful in their endeavour.—M. ]. 
This is also intimated by the Accusative ὑμᾶς and 
2 Jno. 8; Matth. xxiv. 5, 11, 24. [This is 
certainly a singular conclusion, for ὑμᾶς indicates 
that they, the readers of the Epistle, the Church, 
are the object of the deceiver’s endeavours.—M. ]. 
The word itself denotes an act, a continuing ac- 
tivity, and therefore more than a ‘‘studium, cona- 
tus,” ‘*seducere conantibus” (Bengel, Huther). 
[See Apparat. Critic. ν. 26, note 27.—M.]. Hence 
the reiterated exhortation to fidelity. 

Ver. 27. And you—the ointment which 
ye received from Him, abideth in you, 
and ye have no need that any one teach 
you.—Thought, expression and construction, as 
in vv. 20, 21: καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ χρίσμα---φυλάττετε--- 
μένει ἐν ὑμῖν. From ὑμᾶς, v. 26, the Apostle takes 
καὶ ὑμεῖς, and contrasting them with οἱ πλανῶντες, 
places said words emphatically in anteposition, 
for they would be too strongly emphasized if we 
were to connect them with the relative clause. 
ef. v. 24. Τὸ χρίσμα here, as χρῖσμα, v. 20, is in 
the Accusative, but must not be connected with 
the relative clause, per trajectionem. The Article 
denotes what is known and what has already 
been mentioned. ’EAdfere distinctly marks their 
reception and points to a greater obligation than 
the previous reference to possession (ἔχετε, v. 20). 
The gift is not without its task and work, here, 
under the impulse of gratitude. ’Az’ αὐτοῦ of 
course designates Him round whom the Apostle’s 
thoughts revolve as round their centre, the same 
who is deseribed in ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου, Christ, v. 25. 
This verse proves that τοῦ ἁγίου, v. 20, relates to 
Christ (Huther). While the Future was used in 
v. 24 (μενεῖτε), we have here the Present (μένει) 
in order to express the Apostle’s certain assu- 
rance (Huther) and to exhort at the same time to 
tnat which he does expect. Bengel (** Habet hic 
indicativus perquam subtilem adhortationem (confe- 
rendam ad 2. Tim. iii. 14) gua fideles, a deceptatoribus 
sollicitatos, ita vis respondere facit: unctio in nobis 
manet: non egemus doctore: illa nos verum do- 
cet: in ea doctrina permanebimus. Vide guam 
amcena sit transitio ab hac sermocinatione ad sermo- 
nem directum versu sequenti ‘* Manet in vobis: mane- 
bitis in Ilo” correlata).—Kai, and because the 
Holy Spirit is and abideth in you (Bengel: et ideo), 
ov χρείαν ἔχετε, ye have no need whatever; thus 
is brought out here the αὐτάρκεια ϑεοδιδάκτων, and 
we have here a new particular, which was not 


81 


expressed in y. 20. The construction with ἵνα 
occurs also Jno. ii. 25; xvi. 80.—Tod διδάσκειν, 
Heb. v. 12. The Infinitive only, Matth. iii. 14; 
xiv. 6; 1 Thess. 14 85) 1v.)9..) This. teaching is 
taken here not asa simple consequence, but as 
the end and aim because of the condition of the 
persons to be taught. Love prompts thereto, for 
love deems it its duty and cherishes the intention 
to teach. Hence the meaning is: ‘‘ You are not 
at all in the situation that somebody should or 
ought to teach you” (Diisterdieck after Liicke and 
against Huther, who takes ἵνα in a weakened 
sense and thinks that it is simply used to indi- 
cate the object). Hence we may think also of 
Apostolical instruction, fraternal encouragement 
and (with reference to τίς y. 21) friendly teach-- 
ing, perhaps that of the Apostle himself (Bengel, 
de Wette, Liicke, Diisterdieck). There is no oc- 
casion here to think of πλανῶν ; so Semler, Spe- 
ner, (tic—who asserts a new revelation), Sander, 
Gerlach, Besser. But with reference to πάντα 
vy. 20 and περὶ πάντων we must not restrict iva 
διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς to instruction concerning the false 
teachers (as Liicke does), although that is in- 
cluded (Huther).—It is important to bear in 
mind that this passage does not hold out the least 
encouragement, or give support to the vagaries 
of fanatics, because the Holy Spirit works on the 
basis of the word given and received, and does 
not communicate any thing new, but only imparts 
to believers clearer perceptions and views of that 
which they already have. 

But as the ointment of Him teacheth 
you concerning all things, and is true and 
is not lie, and as it hath taught you, so 
abide in Him.—As we read τὸ αὐτοῦ χρίσμα 
and not τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα, it is only necessary to 
observe that Bengel (‘‘idem semper, non aliud atque 
aliud, sed sibi constans, et idem apud sanctos omnes ) 
finds here the unchangeableness, and Diisterdieck 
and others the identity of the chrism, which un- 
ceasingly teaches believers and which they have 
received from Him, the Christ; our reading 
brings out this identity and also reiterates its 
origin: [See Appar. Crit. v. 27., note 29, where 
the other reading is advocated, according to 
which we render ‘the same ointment,” i. e., the 
identical χρῖσμα, ὃ ἐλάβετε.-- ΝΜ. ].—The structure 
of this sentence presents peculiar difficulties, 
᾿Αλλὰ introduces the antithesis μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ. 
While, on the one hand, the Apostle had assured 
them that they have no need of being taught by 
any one, because they have the Spirit reminding 
them of the words of the Lord and leading them 
into all truth, he now declares, on the other, and 
by way of antithesis, that they have need of 
abiding faithful with Him. Hence the words in 
parenthesis belong to the first dc, although the 
vivacity [of the Apostle’s diction] which never 
repeats without indicating some new feature, has 
occasioned various modifications. The exhorta- 
tion: μένετε ἐν ἀυτῷ requires fidelity toward and 
steadfastness with Christ, as is unmistakable 
from the context and y, 28. Erasmus explaining 
ἐν τῷ χρίσματι erroneously thinks of the Holy 
Spirit, and Baumgarten-Crusius of the doctrine 
of the Spirit, while Schottgen strikingly ob- 
serves: ‘‘¢n Christo, yuem Johannes semper in mente 
habet.” The motive for abiding with Christ is: 
τὸ αὐτοῦ χρίσμα διδάσκει περὶ πάντων. Hence the 


82 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


aS SS eS eS" CL LL LLL Ve 0c. cc en a ρ΄ πρἩἩΦΡ τ τ᾿ 


context also recommends the well authenticated 
αὐτοῦ [the authorities on Braune’s own showing 
are all the other way; they stand thus: αὐτοῦ 
C. Sin (?) against αὐτὸ A. B. (ἢ) G. K.—M.]; it 
is the ointment of the Holy Ghost from Him 
[αὐτοῦ 31, Christ, with [év?] whom they are to 
remain ; and this ointment teaches them concern- 
ing all things, as we read y. 20: οἴδατε πάντα. 
But not only the extent of that concerning which 
they are taught of the Holy Spirit is the motive 
for his exbortation that they should abide with 
Him. The chief motive is the characteristic: 
καὶ ἀληθές ἐστιν. The χρῖσμα is called absolutely 
ἀληθὲς, implying of course that that also which it 
teaches, is true; the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of 
truth (Jno. xiv. 17), therefore He leadeth you 
also into all truth (Jno. xvi. 13). So Diister- 
dieck; also Liicke, de Wette, Briickner, Ebrard. 
There is no ground for restricting the reference 
to that which the χρῖσμα teaches, as do Oecume- 
nius, Theophylact, Luther, Neander, Besser, 
Huther. The importance of the true essence 
and substance of the χρῖσμα occasions the addi- 
tional clause which. denies all lie: καὶ οὐκ ἐστὶν 
ψεῦδος, and lie is not, is not extant. John evi- 
dently here recurred to the thought expressed in 
y. 21: πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν, and that 
there is no lie where the Spirit teaches. Now 
the Apostle resumes with the fuller form καθὼς 
that which he had begun with ἀλλ᾽ ὡς, and more- 
over, by way of reminding them that the Holy 
Spirit had taught them for some time: καθὼς ἐδί- 
δαξεν ὑμᾶς. This Aorist after the preceding Pre- 
sent ought not to occasion any difficulty ; and 
the καὶ before καθὼς instead of the ἀλλὰ before 
ὡς is readily accounted for by the one immedi- 
ately preceding it, the sentence, thus resumed, 
connects with the testimony of the truth of the 
Spirit and His teaching; agreeably to which He 
has taught and teaches believers. Hence we 
should not divide the second clause of this verse 
into two parts (with Luther, Calvin, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Sander, Briickner, Besser, Hu- 
ther, and others), so that ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσμα 
διδάσκει ὑμᾶς is the first antecedent, and καὶ 
ἀληθές ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιὺ ψεῦδος its consequent, 
and again καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς is the second 
antecedent, and μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ its consequent. 
The explanation given by us is supported by 
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Liicke, de Wette, 
Neander, Diisterdieck, Ewald and others. [This 
applies only to the structure of the sentence, not 
to the exposition of the passage. As to the 
former we cannot but think that the one adopted 
by Huther and the many authorities who agree 
with him, is preferable to that of Braune, and on 
the following grounds: Ist, it assigns to περὶ 
πάντων its proper position, whereas in the former 
view is no relation whatsoever to peveire (μένετε) 
of the consequent; 2d, ἀλλὰ indicates that the 
Apostle is about ,to introduce an antithesis to 
ob χρείαν ἔχετε, a sentence in which the teaching 
of the χρῖσμα is to be described as exempting 
them from the necessity of another human 
teacher, and 3d, because the clause καὶ οὐκ ἔστι 
ψεῦδος added to ἀληθές ἐστι raises this thought 
above the character of a mere parenthetical and 
secondary observation, and stamps it as the 
leading thought. These are the grounds on 
which Luther, Calvin, Baumgarten-Crusius, San- 


der, Briickner, Besser, Huther, and many more, 
deem it preferable to divide the whole into two 
clauses, and to take καὶ ἀληθές ἐστι καὶ οὐκ ἐστι 
ψεῦδος as the consequent of the first clause. 
‘‘But as the anointing teaches you all things, so 
it is true and is no lie,” etc. (Luther).—M. ]. 

The conclusion of the whole section, v. 28. 

Ver. 28. And now, little children, abide 
with [in, ἐν] him. 

Kai viv connects the exhortation, repeated on 
account of its great importance and already ex- 
pressed as a hope and in confidence y. 27, with 
the preceding verses. Kai viv occurs very often 
(Jno. xvii. 5; Acts ili.17; iv. 29; vii. 84; x. 5; 
xxii. 16; 2 Thess. ii. 6), or καὶ viv ἰδοὺ (Acts xiii. 
11; xx. 22, 25), or viv οὖν (Acts xvi. 86; xxiii. 
15), on the other hand ἀλλὰ viv (Luke xxii. 36), 
νῦν δὲ (Jno. viii. 40; ix. 41; xv. 22, 24; xviii. 
36), but always so that out of the originally sen- 
tient description of the present there has sprung 
a certain logical significance in order to mark 
the consequences from a present situation, to 
draw an inference or conclusion, to annex the 
features involved in a given case or to denote an 
antithetical relation (Diisterdieck). Hence Pau- 
lus errs in rendering: ‘‘ Even already now—as 
in opposition to the Parthian-magian doctrine, 
that union with God cannot take place except in 
the future kingdom of light.”—The seasonable 
address texvia frees the Apostle’s earnestness 
from all severity, and intensifies his exhortation 
as a paternal right, by reminding them of the 
fellowship of love as the consequence of his 
Apostolical discharge of duty. ‘‘Repetitio est 
precepti cum blanda appellatione, qua paternum erga 
eos amorem declaret” (Estius). It is inconceivable 
how Socinus applies the ἐν αὐτῷ not to Christ, 
but to Deus per Christum, and how Semler could 
hit upon this doctrine. Rickli, who explains y. 
27 of abiding in the confession that Jesus is the 
Christ, suggests here abiding in righteousness.— 
Now follows a reference to the judgment. 

That if He shall be manifested we may 
have confidence and not be shamed 
away from Him at His coming.—Since ἐὰν 
and not ὅταν is the true reading, we have here 
not an intimation of the dime, or the nearness of 
the time, but of the reality of the manifestation of 
Christ (Huther, Disterdieck). Although the 
same word is applied to our Lord’s appearing in 
flesh, in the form of a servant (ch. iii. 5. 8, égave- 
pty), still it may be applied with equal propriety 
to the future manifestation of His glory as in Col. 
iii. 4. That will be manifested which as yet is 
hidden. The Apostle now passes to the first 
person Plural: παῤῥησίαν σχῶμεν. He ever places 
himself under the laws (ch. i. 6 sqq.; ii. 2 sq.; 
iii. 16, 18 sqq.) and promises (ch. iii. 1 sqq.; 21; 
iv. 17; v. 11. 20), applicable to all without being 
able to exclude himself from the hope here pre- 
sented (de Wette, Diisterdieck). Hence it is not 
from modesty (S. Schmid), nor because he would 
suffer loss if any members of his Church were 
falling away (Sander). Παῤῥησία is literally 
frankness, free-spokenness (Acts iv. 18, 29. 31; 
xxvi. 26; xxviii. 31; 1 Thess. ii. 2) then confident 
assurance with respect to all the threats and ter- 
rors of the judgment. The Vulgate translates 
fiducia, Luther properly freudig (vreidic ἡ. 6. free); - 
Freudigkeit (vreidicheit «. e. freeness), which sheer 


CHAP. II. 18-28. 


83 


—— i Se ee aa ee 


ignorance has turned into joyful ( Jreudig) and 
joyfulness (Freudigkeit). Compare Vilmar Pas- 
toral-theolog. Blatter 1861, Nos. 1.2; Jiitting, Bib- 
lisches Worterbuch (1864) 5. y.--A Strasburg edi- 
tion of 1537, indeed, has already Freudigkeit, but 
the original word is Freydigkeit (Niirnberg ed. 
1524), Freydigkeyt (Wittenberg ed. 1525), Freidig- 
keit (1530), and in a sermon on Jno. iv. 16-21 he 
speaks of boldness (Trotz) in the last day. The 
Greek Scholiasts and Lexicographers explain 
the word by ἄδεια, ἐξουσία, ἡ ἐπὶ τοῖς κακίστοις 
εὔτολμος ἀπολογία. The ordinary antithesis is 
αἰσχύνεσθαι (Prov. xiii. 5; Phil. i. 20) to be 
ashamed, to shame oneself or feel ashamed, so as 
to depart from Him the Judge. The preposition 
ἀπὸ therefore is not—=trd (Socinus), nor—coram 
(Luther, Ewald), nor both together (S. Schmid, 
Sander), but—away from (Calvin, Beza, de Wette, 
Diisterdieck, Huther); but it is necessary to re- 
tain the Passive and not the Middle, because we 
do not retire and withdraw ourselves, but are 
rejected and driven away. Cf. Matth. xxv. 41. 
It is impossible to agree with Erasmus, who 
Says: “ut wlum non pudeat nostri.’’—ILapovoia 
occurs only here in John’s writings, but often 
elsewhere (Matth. xxiv. 8, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. xv. 
23; 1 Thess. ii. 19 ete.), corresponds with pave- 
pot, and as φανερωθῇ answers to παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν 
80 παρουσία answers to αἰσχύνεσθαι. All this, con- 
nected with iva, constitutes a motive for abiding 
with Him, walking in the light, in fellowship 
with Him, 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The unmistakable reference here to the im- 
manent Trinity is theological in the strictest sense 
of the word. According to the final clause of νυ. 
22 and ν. 28 we have here a reference to a pater- 
nal relation with respect to the Son, and to a filial 
relation with respect to the Father existing above 
and before the world within the Godhead. The 
Son is not only a power or principle before He 
became personal in the Christ, but He is personal 
in virtue of his Being, the Son of the Father who 
is a Person, the Son who as the Image of the 
Father is also a Person. But He became a his- 
torical Person, a Person belonging to the history 
of man in the Christ who did appear in Jesus. 
See Exegerican anp Crirvicat. 

2. The knowledge of God without the know- 
ledge of Christ is impossible, because the know- 
ledge of God is impossible without fellowship with 
God, which is solely the result of confession of 
Jesus the Christ. 

3. Fellowship with God is not the act of men 
but the act of God through Christ. It begins in 
the word which is preached and heard, continues 
in the communication and reception of the Chris- 
ma, the Holy Spirit, and it consists in the truth 
and in the constancy of faith and confession. 
The Word of Christ and the Spirit given of Him 
must first come to us and do His work and in us 
and then we shall be able to abide with Him in 
virtue of His power. 

4. The question here is as to what constitutes 
the difference between esse in ecclesia and esse de 

_ ecclesia. As surely as these two conditions must 
be distinguished from each other, so certain it is 
that in point of fact they do coéxist alongside 


each other. So Conress. Ava. Art. 8.: “Quid sit 
ecclesia?—in hac vita multi hypocrite et mali ad- 
mixti—; Apou. IV. de ecclesia ὁ. 11: malos nomine 
tantum in ecclesia esse, non re, bonos vero re et no- 
mine: Hieronymus enim ait: qui ergo peccator est 
aliqua sorde maculatus, de ecclesia Christi non potest 
appellari nec Christo subjectus dict.’””—*Like tares 
they stood in the same field alongside the wheat 
(Matth. xiii. 28 sqq.) and had part in the divine 
manifestations of grace whereby the whole field 
is made fertile and the genuine wheat brought to 
ripeness. But they shewed themselves to be 
tares and by their seceding did execute on them- 
selves the divine judgment. Augustine and Bede, 
with whom Luther agrees in his second exposi- 
tion, also compare the antichrists with the evil 
humours of the body. The body of Christ also, 
so long as it is undergoing the process of being 
cured, that is so long as it has not attained to 
perfect health through the resurrection, has such 
noxious humours (quandoquidem adhue curatur 
corpus tpsius et sanitas perfecta non erit nisi in resur- 
rectione mortuorum; sic sunt in corpore Christi, 
quomodo humores mali). Their expulsion liberates 
the body and enables it to attain unto perfect 
health (quando evomuntur, tune relevatur corpus). 
But this does not happen to keep up Bede’s 
figure, with the providential care of God” (Diis- 
terdieck). 

5. The present section cannot be pressed into 
the service of predestinarianism. Augustine, 
indeed, says with reference to this passage 
(de bon. persev. 11, 8): ‘non erant ex nobis, quia 
non erant secundum propositum vocati, non erant in 
Christo electi ante constitutionem mundi—non erant 
predestinati secundum propositum ejus, qui universa 
operatur.” So Calvin, Jnst. III. 24,7. But al- 
though Calvin the theologian [German ‘“ Dog- 
matiker,” not—=dogmatist, i. e., one who is certain 
or presumes to say he knows, whether he be mis- 
taken or in the right, but the teacher of a theo- 
logical dogma—M. ] cannot be corrected by Cal- 
vin the interpreter, yet Augustine the theologian 
can be corrected by Augustine the interpreter in 
his Tractat. ad h. l.,where he says: ‘“‘Dg voLun- 
TATE SUA wnusguisque aut antichristus, aut in 
Christo est; qui se in melius commutat, in corpore 
membrum est, qui autem in malitia permanet, humor 
malus est.” The Apostle distinguishes inward and 
true Christian fellowship from that which is only 
outward and in appearance; those who belong 
to the former are so thoroughly fettered in their 
believing and regenerated mind, that, as Liicke 
thinks, they can nevermore separate from that 
fellowship. It is, to use the striking language 
of the Oxymoron of Didymus, a voluntaria ne- 
cessitas, but no contrarietas naturarum, although 
in the course of moral development there should 
arise a diversitas substantie.—The phrases οὐκ 
ἐξ ἡμῶν εἶναι and ἐξ ἡμῶν εἶναι used by the 
Apostle to denote simply the opposite results 
of the ethical life-process, which in the for- 
mer case leads to ἐξελϑεῖν and in the latter to 
μένειν pet ἡμῶν. But, as Augustine says, every 
Christian may become an antichrist, accord- 
ing as his will refuses to be determined to 
μένειν ἐν Χριστῷ, which beginning with the hear- 
ing of His word and advancing to πίστις εἰς αὐτόν, 
to childlike and unremitting trust and cleaving’ 
to Him, develops itself by ever determining, 


84 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


guiding, strengthening, purifying and confirm- 
ing the will, is a veritable history of the word 
heard with the outward ears and inwardly in 
the heart filling and conquering the heart until it 
has become wholly believing, but for all that may 
and does offer resistance at every point, so 
that it often does resist for some length of time 
and so undoes all its previous acquirements, that 
it often conceals unpardoned sins which may 
again draw it down or at least arrest its progress 
and bring it to the point that, unless it submit 
to being cleansed anew, it will apostatize and 
thus a Christian may become an antichrist, 
which is however of rare occurrence, because 
the eternal powers of the word of Christ and His 
Spirit are very strong and mighty and the heart 
of man has been created for and with special 
adaptation to said powers. Hence the universal 
experience that it is difficult to get to Christ 
through self-denying and world-renouncing peni- 
tence, but that it is even more difficult to get 
away from Christ through the denial of the con- 
science and of faith as well as of the word of 
Christ quickened in the conscience by faith,— 
and the Apostle speaks from this experience. 
But in all this there is neither predestination 
nor necessity, especially since the Apostle’s ex- 
hortation to abide leaves room for the possibility 
of their apostasy, as to the reality of which the 
Apostle confidently entertains no fear in the case 
of those who are vital Christians. Nor is it to 
be overlooked that John does not throw out the 
faintest allusion to the difference between the 
electi and vocati and the donum perseverantiz. In 
the passage Heb. vi. 4-6 the lapse of the truly 
regenerate (as is evident from their description) 
is supposed to be possible, but the re-conversion 
of such apostates only is said to be impossible, 
so that we ought to be afraid. [Huther: the 
words εἰ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν ἄν ped ἡμῶν 
contain the idea that he who truly belongs to the 
Church will never leave it, but he that leaves it 
shows thereby that he did not truly belong to it. 
This confidence of the Apostle in the love of the 
Lord which keeps and preserves those who are 
His, and in the fidelity of those who have been 
redeemed by Him, seems to contradict the idea 
pre-supposed in Heb. vi. 4-6, that they also who 
were once enlightened and had tasted of the hea- 
venly gift and were made partakers of the Holy 
Ghost, can fall away. But Jobn speaks here, as 
he does throughout his Epistle, absolutely, with- 
out any reference to the state of gradual devel- 
opment, from whence however it does by no means 
follow that he did not knowit. The one circum- 
stance that he exhorts believers, as such to abide 
in Christ, is sufficient to show that he does not 
wish to deny the possibility of their apostasy, all 
he is sure of, and rightly so, is this that he that 
does not abide, had never truly entered into fel- 
lowship with the Lord with his whole heart, but 
although he was touched by His love and felt 
somewhat of its power, he had not entirely 
abandoned and renounced the world.’”’—M. ]. 

6. The Apostle here asserts a double law of 
historical development in its definite application 
to the development of the kingdom of God. 
‘‘Evil by a gradual process of development cul- 
minates, then in the conflict between the king- 
dom of God and evil, the former develops itself, 


and at length, through a new coming of Christ 
in power, the kingdom of Christ is once more 
subdued.” (Neander). This is the one, and of 
the other the same author speaks thus: ‘In 
this respect also we shall see how the workings of 
one uniform law ever appear in the course of the 
development of the kingdom of God, that in good 
and evil there are certain individual personages 
constituting as it were, the centre and appear- 
ing especially as representatives of the conflicting 
principles, uniting and concentrating in them- 
selves as one great whole, the fragments scat- 
tered in many individuals.’”’ ‘When in the 
times before the Reformation the secularized 
Church under the secularized papacy, was espe- 
cially instrumental under the cloak of Christian- 
ity to obscure and oppose true Christianity, peo- 
ple might believe that they saw in this the visible 
manifestation of antichrist, and Matthias of 
Janow, the Bohemian reformer before Huss, 
might suppose to have detected the effect of Sa- 
tan’s craft in the circumstance that believers in- 
stead of identifying antichrist in the present, 
viz., the rule of the secularized Church and the 
sway of a superstition even unto the idolizing of 
the human, were beguiled into seeking it at some 
distant period.”’ The increasing revelation of 
the depths of evil in the world, runs therefore 
parallel to the development of the kingdom of God 
even up to its ultimate completion and both pass 
through personages in whom the former does 
concentrate. See also Diisterdieck: ‘‘The devel- 
opment of the Christian principle and that of the 
antichristian principle are reciprocally related. 
Christian truth cannot be revealed without forth- 
with exciting the contradiction of the darkness. 
The wheat and the tares grow together until they 
are ripe. The antichristian spirit works already 
in many antichrists; but the one antichrist is 
still future, still to come, and is only announced 
by his precursors. Although therefore the 
last hour has already come, yet its full close is 
still to come, viz., the real, personal advent of 
the Lord which will take place immediately after 
the appearance of the personal antichrist. But 
John did neither tell us when this antichrist 
would come nor give us a chronological clue to 
the exact time of the personal advent of Christ. 
In both respects he confines himself to the state- 
ment that the events are to take place.”’— 

7. Athough John in giving prominence to the 
marrow and vitalizing centre of Christianity, viz., 
to the belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son 
of God, does not warrant us to undervalue the 
articulated confession of faith as a whole or as to 
its component parts, which are only developments 
of the pushing germ, he yet attaches, and for this 
very reason, the greatest importance to the faith- 
fulness of abiding, the fides qui creditur, with refe- 
rence to said centre. 

8. His account of the’ χρῖσμα and its gifts, cha- 
racteristically and emphatically adverts to the 
universal priesthood, indicating its origin and 
glory. 

9. The ‘critical ability’’ (Diisterdieck) of 
Christians founded on the full knowledge of the 
truth, like the advancing knowledge of the truth 
itself, goes hand in hand with progressive holi- 
ness. The point throughout is not mere know- 
ledge, tidings or information of a life in and of 


CHAP. II. 18-28. 


85 


i Ὁ Ὁ Φ 


(from) God, but the actual possession and enjoy- 
ment of this life, the life itself and the personal 
converse of the human soul with the living and 
revealed God; and it concerns man’s inmost and 
most profound being, which is neither the under- 
standing nor the reason, but the will, and the 
point in question is not science but conscience. 

10. It is only in the way of obedience to the 
word and will of God that man is able to keep 
and intensify fellowship with Him in order that 
he may become a partaker of the divine Being, 
the divine Nature. 
God that man departs from the Being of God until 
he is wholly rejected. 

11. The decision and the separation will not 
take place until the last, the last judgment; con- 
sider this.— 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


See what time it is in the kingdom of God? 
1. Hearken to the word which is preached (vv. 
18, 24); 2. be led by the Spirit whom thou hast 
received (vy. 20, 27); 8. take note of the separa- 
tions which take place in the Church (vv. 19, 22) ; 
4. hold fast to Jesus the Christ, who is the Son 
of the Father (vy. 26, 28).—In all the separa- 
tions in the Church be sure not to forget to de- 
cide.—In every separation the sorrow of haying 
been deceived before is connected with the joy of 
greater purity hereafter,—In the uncertainty as 
to who are true vital Christians take care lest 
thou lose the conviction that the vital Christian 
abides constant.—Act as Gideon did who en- 
countering the Midianites numbering 135,000 
with an army of 32,000 at the Lord’s bidding re- 
duced the same by 22,000 and made a selection of 
800 from the remaining 10,000 even as directed by 
the Lord, and then gained a glorious victory with 
them (Judg. vii.).—The source of the anointing is 
the Holy Ghost, its pre-requisite regeneration, its 
power an assured conviction of the importance 
of the truth, its impulse an earnest desire to 
bring it home to the hearts of others; it was a 
protection from the hierarchism and episcopa- 
lianism of the 2d and 38d centuries. Is. xli. 15 
applies to it. [I should rather say in more strict 
agreement with the text that the chrism of the 
Holy Ghost from Christ is a sure protection from 
any and every form of spiritual secessionism, se- 
paratism and individualism.—M.]. Because of 
a sorrowful experience in the Church do not give 
up the joy of the glory of the Chureh.—Compa- 
rison of the ointment as the figure or symbol of 
the Holy Spirit: 1, its value; 2, its use in the 
anointing of kings, priests and prophets; 3, its 
power of strengthening and stimulating the spi- 
rit of life; 4, its influence on a life well-pleasing 
to God; 5, its far-spreading fragrance.—The 
fundamental doctrine of salvation is: Jesus is 
the Christ. 1, With it and in it we find our way 
into the rich heart of God and bring God into 
our poor heart; 2, in opposition to it we bring 
eternal ruin into our heart and ourselves into 
eternal ruin. Or, 1, By it you learn the corrupt- 
ing false teachers; 2, in it the true and living 
Christian shows himself: 3, out of it you pass to 
the inheritance of God.—Do not drive Christ and 
His word from thy heart, or Christ will drive 
thee from His kingdom.—y. 28. Confirmation- 
address. 


It is contrary to the will of 


Gregory :—‘‘Nisi Spiritus Sanctus intus sit qui 
doceat, doctoris lingua extus in vanum laborat.” 

AUGUSTINE :—‘‘Cathedram in colo habet, qui 
intus docet.” 

Luruer :—It is dangerous and terrible to be- 
lieve something against the uniform testimony, 
faith and doctrine of the universal holy Church, 
which has now thus held it unanimously in every 
place from the beginning these fifteen hundred 
years past.—Many a man has a paternoster round 
his neck and a rogue in his heart. 

Starke:—As the betrayer of Christ was one 
of His most intimate Apostles, so antichrist did 
not arise among Jews or Turks, but in the very 
midst of Christendom.—The Church remaineth 
not without offences of which that is not least 
that within her fold there arise men who hold 
false doctrine and apostatize from the known 
truth; the tares do not grow by themselves, but 
in the midst of the wheat.—Constancy in good is 
an infallible sign of a true Christian, just as tem- 
porizing and changeableness indicate a false 
heart.—Christians are anointed, and their name 
should daily remind them of what they owe to 
God and their neighbour as spiritual kings, 
priests and prophets.—A teacher ought not to 
despise his hearers, for they also, if they believe, 
are anointed with the Holy Spirit and the know- 
ledge of divine truths, although there may be 
differences in the measure of their anointing. — 
He also denies Christ the Saviour, who does not 
prove in deed that He is His Saviour who has in- 
deed delivered him from the guilt and punish- 
ment of sin.—We have need to be especially on 
our guard against the denial of Christ which 
takes place, not only in words and in doctrine, 
but also in our life.—The word of God must re- 
main in the whole man, and not only enter his 
understanding.—A Christian, an anointed one, 
that is his name, but also the greatest preroga- 
tive to divine wisdom, it opens to him the school 
in which the most learned are seated below on 
the bench of humility, who follow in the simpli- 
city of their heart, who know all things, and ever 
learn what they know, love and do.—As is a king 
without a kingdom, a ruler without subjects, a 
general without soldiers, so is a Christian with- 
out the anointing. Because the last coming of 
the Lord will be terrible, we should be diligent 
to be so well prepared that we may be found 
worthy to stand before the Son of Man.—The 
day of our Lord’s coming may properly be called 
the believers’ day of honour, for they shall be 
manifested, declared righteous, and advanced to 
the full enjoyment of heavenly blessing. 

Srener:—It is a great blessing that God does 
not allow the heavenly [?] deceivers to remain in 
the Church but overrules it that they are made 
known and we learn to be on our guard against 
them, that they must manifest themselves and 
make themselves known, whereby the danger is 
lessened and believers rendered more cautious 
and prompted to be diligent in prayer and to 
work out their own salvation with fear and 
trembling.—Ever those who truly believe and 
have made great advances in the faith, may be 
deceived, and therefore let those who think that 
they stand, take heed lest they fall. None but 
those who have the Holy Spirit and the anointing 
can be sufficiently on their guard against the lies 


86 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


of antichrist. All other knowledge is too weak 
by far to be able to withstand temptation and 
spiritual conflicts. 

Uurtuorn :—He only has God, who has Him as 
the Triune God. Let us only begin with what the 
Apostle puts in the middle, He that hath not the 
Son, neither hath he the Father, add that with 
which he begins, of the Son we can only know 
through the Holy Spirit, and conclude the state- 
ment in virtue of what the Apostle says, that 
the anointing cometh from Him who is holy: 
The Holy Ghost cometh from the Father and the 
Son. 

LAVATER :—Every one who is not an evangelical 
Christian, does not believe in Jesus Christ, is an 
atheist. 

Hevusner :—A hostile power, an opposition to 
Christianity, has stirred from the beginning. 
And this is a recommendation of Christianity ; a 
proof of the mighty power of Christianity against 
evil, which is terrible to the wicked one. The 
more the good raises itself the more also does 
evil bestir itself. Where God builds a temple, 
Satan is sure to build a chapel by the side of it. 
—lIt serves also to exercise and try the soldiers 
of Christ. Without an opposing power, the di- 
vine drama would be without life or interest.— 
Unbelief which pretends that the kernel and 
characteristics of Christianity are irrational, is a 
very important epoch in this history.—Who 
thought Christianity imperilled by the growth of 
antichrist would betray great weakness of heart 
and understanding and want of confidence. The 
Christian should rejoice at every further mani- 
festation: the end is drawing nearer: the catas- 
trophe in the kingdom of Christ is the point to 
which the eyes of Christians are longingly di- 
rected.—The enemies of Christianity draw nour- 
ishment from the Church: it is in their interest 
not to suffer themselves to be deprived of the 
name ‘“‘Christian;” they would then accomplish 
less and be less dangerous.—The manifestation 
of all, the good as well as the bad, is the design 
of the Kingdom of God. The evil cannot long 
conceal or disguise itself or stand back: it only 
waits for the time of coming out. God wills it 
thus. The appearance of evil tries and purifies 
the Church. It is a refreshing relief to Chris- 
tians to see the separation of the unclean.—A 
Christian is insured and protected from false 
teachers. He has the Holy Spirit 1. Who in- 
terpenetrates every thing like precious perfume, 
enters into every thing, and imparts to it fra- 
grance and the breath of life—to his thinking, 
judging, feeling and willing. The Christian is 
thereby clothed with a royal and priestly dignity 
in the Kingdom of God (Rey. i. 6). The anoint- 
ing is the signature of the Christian, 2. The 
Spirit enables him to try, to identify the spirit 
of error, to judge; to such a Christian no false 
teacher can be dangerous.—The Christian has a 
fine sense of discrimination (βάψαι odoratus); he 
quickly perceives the essence and tendency of 
every doctrine; hence his Christian severity of 
judgment and his antipathy to syncretism.—Bad 
opinions, seductive principles among Christians, 
originate not in Christianity. The Church of 
Christ must not be charged with the evil that is 
in it.—He that will not know God in Jesus— 
where else will he know God?—There is no re- 


velation of God which resembles the revelation 
in Christ; if one is not satisfied with this revela- 
tion, which revelation will satisfy him ?—Whe- 
ther they like or do not like it, neologians are 
obliged to assert that true Christianity was un- 
known before them; for what they now call 
Christianity is known to the whole antiquity.— 
The true Christian faith is immutable and needs 
no perfecting.—This faith is of the utmost im- 
portance; our eternal salvation depends upon 
it; it is not a useless, subtle question raised by 
the schools, but it concerns the promise of eternal 
life, and the virtue of this promise depends on the 
Person of Jesus; only if He is truly the Son of 
God He is able to promise and give eternal life. 
This must attach us strongly to the faith, and 
those who have felt the power of this faith, live 
and die for this faith.—EHven anointed Christians 
stand in need of warning and admonition, be- 
cause deceivers are never quiet and because 
within us there is not wanting that which meets 
them half-way.—Other gifts decrease in the 
course of time, the Holy Spirit does not de- 
crease. Other frames of mind and tendencies of 
thought change, the Holy Spirit does not change. 
Yield to the promptings of the Spirit and be vigi- 
lant lest thou mistake thy own spirit for the 
Holy Spirit and be deceived. Be pure’ and 
meek.—Abiding with Christ and in Him in 
steadfastness of faith and faithful following Him 
is the more honourable, the more fall away from 
Him, and it is necessary, because our acceptance 
depends on it. If one becomes unfaithful to 
Christ, how can he appear before Him with joy- 
fulness [confidence?]? That thought has an 
overwhelming influence on the heart of a Chris- 
tian. How shall unbelievers appear before Him 
who to please the world leave Christ, and esteem 
the world’s honours more highly than the grace 
of Christ? How well it would be if all men 
would only examine themselves in all their 
judging and doing; could you act thus in the 
presence of Jesus? would you dare to say such 
and such a thing in the presence of Jesus? would 
you dare to maintain such an opinion before 
Him? If you are honest and conscientious ac- 
cording to your interpretation, so that He may 
not even blame you, why have you twisted my 
words after your liking? 

Brsser:—lt is the last hour. But those who 
read the history of the Church wrongly, and con- 
sider the time of her highest inward beauty and 
manifest power over the world to belong to an 
earthly future, will be inclined to suspect the 
holy Apostle, to have been in error for assuring 
us to have experienced the beginning of the last 
hour; those, on the other hand, who consider 
that the Sun of the Gospel shone in his brightest 
splendor, when in the preaching of the Apostles 
he came forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber 
and rejoiced as a giant to run his race from one 
end of the heavens back to the same end again 
and that there sounds through the whole history 
of the Church the sigh of the saints “Abide with 
us, Lord Jesus, for it is toward evening ’—aye, 
that even her most glorious victories, like the 
victory of the Reformation, are only like the re- 
flection of the setting sun on the darkening 
clouds,—those who see this cease to be surprised 
at what the Apostles tell us of the last hour and 


CHAP. 11. 18-28. 


87 


oe n— i SSSSSSSSSSSSSSsSsSSSSSSSSSSSSsssSSSSS 


read the merciful cause of this prolonged dura- 
tion of the last hour, prolonged for more than 
eighteen hundred years, in the words of the 
Apostle ‘‘the Lord is long-suffering to us-ward”’ 
(2 Pet. iii. 9).—We must not only be on our 
guard against one antichrist, one great adversary 
and deceiver, but against a multitudinous pro- 
geny of the antichristian seed.—When somebody 
praised the sainted Oettinger shortly before his 
death, on account of his great wisdom, he replied 
with asmile: ‘‘Yes, I have learned many things; 
but the most precious knowledge I learned as a 
child in Luther’s Lesser Catechism, which com- 
prises every thing which I desire to keep and 
carry away with me to the seeing face to face.” 
—A learner of the Catechism, that hath the 
Holy Spirit, is able so far to discover all errors 
which militate against the Gospel, that he is pro- 
tected from deception and may immoveably stand 
on the foundation of his faith.—Neither the Jesus 
of the rationalists nor the Christ of the philoso- 
phers hurts the kingdom of Satan.—The anti- 
christs showed themselves to be antitheists— 
Declension begins with men’s loathing that which 
they have heard from the beginning (Rieger. )— 
Every true doctrine the assertion of which is as- 
signed to the church during the time of her 
growth, is already contained in the treasury of 
Holy Scripture. 

Johann Tauler had preached many a learned 
sermon when Nicolaus of Basle, the Waldensian, 
visited and told him: ‘‘You are a kind-hearted 
man and a great priest, but have not yet tasted 
in truth the sweetness of the Holy Spirit.” 
From that time Tauler sought the true Teacher 
in the Scripture and the cross, who teaches us 
more in one hour than all earthly teachers can 
teach us to the last day. 

[Warpurton:—The late appearance of anti- 
christ was a doctrine so universally received in the 
primitive Church, that it was like a proverbial 
saying among them; and thence St. John takes 
occasion to moralize on the doctrine, and warn 
his followers against that spirit, which in after 
times was to animate ‘‘the man of sin.” ‘Little 
children,” says he, ‘‘it is the last time; and as ye 
have heard that antichrists shall come, even now 
there are many antichrists: whereby ye know 
that it is the last time.”? As much as to say, we 
are fallen into the very dregs of time, as appears 
from that antichristian spirit, which now so 
much pollutes the Churches; for you know it is 
a common saying, that antichrist is to come in 
those wretched days. The Apostle goes on to 
employ the same allusion through the rest of the 
Epistle; v. 22. ch. iv. 3; 2 Jno. 7. Where we 
see the appellation ‘‘antichrist’”’ is employed to 
signify an enemy of God and godliness in gene- 
ral, by the same figure of speech that Elias was 
designed in those times to signify a prophet, and 
Rachel, a daughter of Israel; and that in these 
times Judas is used for a@ traitor, and Nero for a 
tyrant. But as these convertible terms necessa- 
rily suppose that they originally belonged to per- 
sons of the like characters, who had them in 
proper, so does the name ‘‘antichrist”’ trans- 
ferred by St. John to certain of his impious con- 
temporaries, as necessarily suppose, that there 
was one who should arise in the latter times, to 
whom the title eminently belonged; as marked out 


in the prophecies by the proper name of anti- 
christ.—M. ]. 

[Hurv’s two sermons on 1 Jno. ii. 18, the one 
entitled ‘Prophecies concerning Antichrist,” the 
other ‘Prejudices against the doctrine of Antichrist,” 
are well worth reading, as they embody much of 
the literature on the subject.—M. ]. 

[ΤΥ :—To deny the Father here, is not to 
deny Him to be the true God, as the heathens 
did: but 1. to deny the truth of His testimony, 
see ch. v.10; Jno. iii. 88 ; 2. to deny the doctrine 
of the Father, or that doctrine which proceedeth 
from Him; ‘for He whom God hath sent, speak- 
eth the words of God,” Jno. iii. 84. Whence it 
is evident, that he who denieth the Son, cannot 
thus retain the true knowledge of the Father; 
Jno. i. 18; Matth. xi. 27. By Him alone can we 
come acceptably to the Father, so as to have life; 
for ‘‘He is the Way, and the Truth and the Life,” 
Jno. xiv. 6. And by Him alone are we taught 
how_to ‘worship the Father in spirit and in 
truth,” Jno. iv. 28, 24. Hence Christ so often 
tells the Jews, they therefore wanted the true 
knowledge of the Father, because they knew not 
Him, Jno. viii. 19; xiv. 7; xvi. 3.—M.]. 

[Asp. SHarp:—Abundance of fanaticism, en- 
thusiasm and other mischiefs have been brought 
into the Church of Christ, by the misinterpreting 
and misapplying of those texts which speak of 
the gifts of the Spirit, which some men so under- 
stand as to make no distinction between the times 
then and the times now.—(Joel ii. 28; Acts ii. 
17; Jer. xxxi. 34; 1 Jno. ii. 27.)—Hence they 
conclude that in these days, which are the last 
days, the Spirit of God is poured upon all flesh, 
and that every one hath a right to expect imme- 
diate impulses and revelations, as to what he is 
to believe and to practise: that by this assistance 
of the Spirit, every brother may understand the 
mysteries of the Holy Scriptures, without the 
troublesome way of studying human learning; 
nay and may take upon himself the pastoral office, 
and become a guide and teacher of others, with- 
out any warrant from human authority, merely 
upon the impulse of the Spirit of God. These 
consequences have been drawn from these and 
such texts of Scripture: and so far have they 
been promoted and improved by several amongst 
us, that reason and prudence and all acquired 
learning, are rather accounted by them hinde- 
rances to the work of God’s Church, than any 
ways contributing toit. Nay, they are arrived 
to a pitch above the Scriptures themselves, which 
they look upon as a dead letter in comparison of 
the light within them, the witness, the anointing 
which they have received from above, which is 
the only measure with them of truth and falsehood, 
of good and evil. The colour, which these enthusi- 
asts derive for this their notion from the letter 
of some passages of the Old and New Testament, 
would quite vanish, if they would but take care to 
distinguish between the effects of the Spirit, 
which belonged to the converting of the world, 
and those which were to be His constant per- 
manent operations among such as were already 
Christians. There is no one will deny but the 
Apostles, and those in their times, had these in- 
spirations, these revelations they speak of: and 
the texts, that they produce, are some of them 
plain proofs that those promises were made good. 


88 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


—eee_oaooeeee ee Πρ. τςτπἭέἭόορὃρΡ ΓΌὃὁὅΣἭΣηΌΛΔΛὍἝ ᾽᾽ 


They did see visions, and were endowed with 
extraordinary talents of wisdom and knowledge, 
without human methods, and might expect parti- 
cular impulses of the Holy Ghost upon occasions, 
where they wanted either light or direction; and 
all this was indeed little enough for the discharge 
of that great work they had upon their hands, 
namely, the bringing of the world over from Ju- 
daism and heathenism to Christianity. But that 
being done once, and the Gospel of Christ, and 
all things pertaining to it, being plainly left in 
writing by the Apostles or Apostolical men, as 
there would be from henceforward no need of 
those assistances of the Spirit, so it would be a 
vain thing to expect them. We are not to desire 
those immediate revelations, nor to expect that 
God should vouchsafe them, if we prayed for 
them. God hath declared all His will, that is 
necessary for us to know, by our Saviour and 
His Apostles: and the rules which they have 
given us, together with our own natural light and 
reason, and the other outward means and helps 
of instruction, which are every day at hand 
among us, are sufficient, abundantly sufficient, to 
guide and direct us, both as to belief and prac- 
tice, through all the cases and emergencies that 
can ordinarily happen to us. And in extraordi- 
nary cases God will take care, some way or 


other, that we shall not be at a loss. And there- 
fore to pretend to the Spirit in these days, either 
for preaching, or praying, or prophesying, or 
denouncing God’s judgments, or for any other 
thing, in such a way as implies immediate inspi- 
ration; or to set up a light within us, contrary 
to the light of reason, or different from the light 
of Scripture without us, is the extreme of folly, 
enthusiasm and madness.”—M. ]. 

[The chrism is 1. a general gift, vouchsafed to all 

Christians ; 

2. not transient but permanent; 

3. leads them into all truth; 

4. moves them to the practice of 
all the precepts of Christ ; 

5. assures them of their Christian 
privileges; (children of God, 
members of Christ and inheri- 
tors of the kingdom of heaven); 

6. teaches them in all things; they 
are therefore disciples and 
learners all the days of their 
life; 

7. preserves their fellowship with 
the Father and with the Son; 
(abide). 

8. and makes them the Temples 
of God.—M. ]. ᾿ 


Ill. PRINCIPAL PART THE SECOND. 
Cuarpter 11. 29—YV. 12. 


HE THAT IS BORN AGAIN (OUT) OF (THE BEING OF) GOD THE RIGHTEOUS (II. 29) IS A 
MIRACLE OF HIS LOVE NOW AND HEREAFTER (III. 1-3), IS BOUND BY HIS WILL 
(III. 4-10a), ESPECIALLY TO PRACTISE BROTHERLY LOVE (IIL. 106-18), IS BLESSED 


BEFORE HIM AND IN HIM 


(III. 19-24), TRYING LIKE GOD THE FALSE SPIRITS (IV. 


1-6), HE ENJOYS THE LOVE OF GOD AND EXHIBITS BROTHERLY LOVE (IV. 7-21), 
HE TRIUMPHS OVER THE WORLD AND IS SURE OF ETERNAL LIFE (V. 1-12). 


1. The leading thought: He that is born again of God the Righteous doeth righteousness. Ch. ii. 29. 


29 
is born of him? 


If ye know that he is righteous, ye know! that? every one that doeth righteousness 


Verse 29. {1 German: “If ye know that He is righteous, know ye.” The Imperative is found in the margin of E. V., 
Wicl. Tynd. Cranm. Rhemish, Syriac, Latin (except Pagn. Beza), German, Dutch, Italian and French 
versions, and adopted by the authorities cited below in Exeyet. and Crit.—M.] 

2xai after ὅτι and before πᾶς is the reading of A. Ὁ. Sin., many cursives and versions, “ Cujus addendi 
nulla causa erat; ex Johannis vero usuest.” (Tischendorf, who omits it in his 7th edition). [If καὶ is 
genuine it serves “to mark the congruity of the inference and the premise,” as Ebrard observes.—M. } 


[8 German: retaining x ai: 
ΜΙ 


EXEGETICAL AND ORITICAL. 


The subject of δίκαιος is not specified. It has 
to be ascertained either from the connection with 
the preceding verses, or from the verse itself. 
On this point Sander very justly lays down the 
Canon: ‘If δίκαιος designates Christ, ἐξ αὐτοῦ 
refers to Him. But if the latter is impossible, 
that is, if ἐξ αὐτοῦ must be referred to God, 
δίκαιος also must designate God.’ There is no 
formal connection of this verse with the pre- 


“that also every one that doeth the righteousness hath been born of Him.”— 


ceding verses containing reference to Christ; it 
is the beginning of a new section. Hence this 
verse, standing alone, must be explained by it- 
self, and the question of the subject has to be 
determined from an examination of the verse it- 
self. Hence there is no warrant for an outward 
occasion of a reference to Christ, especially since 
the oneness of the Father and the Son, of God 
and Christ, is everpresent to the mind of John, 
so that he frequently and easily passes from the 
one to the other without a special indication of 
such transition. Nor can we gather from the 


CHAP. 


II. 12-29. 8ᾳ 


-..-.ο-.-..-᾿ᾧ-----Φ-Φ“ΦὋΠΤὋΕΠ’ἕ’’“Ἕ!ἿἵἝ!“ “΄ΤὌὈτὍΌτΌυτὕοὕὺρὺηἠααο το ;:΄ς.ς:,.:-τ᾿.-.--------------------------- τ -....-  Τ ἐἐΤΤΤΤδΤΤΘΤΘΏΘΌΘΌΘὃΘὃΘὃΦὃΦΘὋἝὋἝὋΦΤἵΤὟ ΤοΟ''͵ 


word δίκαιος whether the reference is to Christ 
or to God, for it is applied to God in ch. i. 9 and 
to Christ in ch. ii. 1. But ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται 
decides the point. The idea of yevvaoda ἐκ 
Χριστοῦ or τέκνα Χριστοῦ notwithstanding Spe- 
ner’s reference to Is. ix. 6; lili. 10; Ps. xxii. 31, 
ex. 3; Matth. ix. 2; Jno. xiii. 38; Heb. ii. 17 
occurs nowhere. But γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
occurs ch. iii. 9; v.18 ef. vv. 1.4: ch. iv. 7; 
and τέκνα ϑεοῦ in the very next verse ch. iii. 1: 
consequently: he is born of (out of) God. ‘“‘Jus- 
tus justum gignit”’ (Bengel). We have therefore 
the valid conclusion: God is righteous, he that 
is born of (out of) God doeth righteousness. 
[Like begets like—M.]. Hence Christ is neither 
the subject of δίκαιος and ἐξ αὐτοῦ (a Lapide, Ben- 
gel, Rickli, Frommann, al.), nor Christ the sub- 
ject of δίκαιος and God the subject of ἐξ αὐτοῦ 
(Storr, Liicke, Heubner al.); but God is the sub- 
ject of δίκαιος and ἐξ αὐτοῦ (Neander, Kostlin, 
Diisterdieck, Ebrard, Huther, al.). 

Ver. 29. If ye know that He is right- 
eous.—Besides what has been said on δίκαιος at 
ch. i. 9; ii. 1, we have further to add that if God 
is ἅγιος as to His Essence, He is δίκαιος as to His 
doing, and just because He is ἀγάπη (ch. iv. 16), 
His energizing Will aims at the revelation of His 
holiness in laws at once agreeable to the holiness 
of His Being and adjusted to the nature and des- 
tination of His creatures, for whose benefit they 
are enacted, showing how His words are to be 
kept and His promises to be fulfilled, and how 
those who obey Him are to be rewarded and those 
who disobey him are to be punished. Legisla- 
tion, denunciation and promise, punishment and 
reward, redemption and the forgiveness of sins 
are the acts and exhibitions of His δικαιοσύνη, 
which is the energy of His holy love directed 
outwardly, or the energy of His love conjoined 
with His holiness. Accordingly there is no 
righteousness whatever outside of God, or sepa- 
rate from God and His energizing, so that He is 
not only the prototype and original, but also the 
primordial source of all human righteousness. 
This is an important object of Christian know- 
ledge, which, whilst it may indubitably be pre- 
supposed in the case of all Christians, is not 
always and readily found in the desired strength 
and purity in individual Christians. Hence ἐὰν 
εἰδῆτε. The Apostle appeals to the consciousness 
of the Church, desiring not to teach anything 
new but to render their knowledge yital and 
fruitful. [Hollaz: ‘Justitia Dei est attributum 
divinum ἐνερ γητικόν, vi eujus Deus omnia que 
eterne sux legi sunt conformia, vult et agit; crea- 
turis convententes leges prescribit, promissa facta 
hominibus implet, bonos remuneratur et impios punit.” 
M.]. 

Euew ye.—Since it is grammatically correct 
(Kiithner 11., p. 550) that such a supposition may 
be followed either by the Imperative or the In- 
dicative of a chief tense, especially of the Fu- 
ture, the prominent use of the Indicative Fu- 
ture, which is very nearly related to the Impera- 
tive, renders it highly probable that our γενώσκετε 
is the Imperative. Now since we read at ch. y. 
15 (referred to by de Wette and Diisterdieck) 
ἐὰν οἴδαμεν---οἴδαμεν, but in the verse immediately 
succeeding ch. ili. 1, idere (to which Huther calls 
attention), the latter consideration decidedly out- 


weighs the former and constrains us to take 
γινώσκετε in the Imperative. To this must still 
be added the sense of the verb and the verse. 
The verb γινώσκειν denotes an activity ever deep- 
ening, quickening and enlarging, the knowing 
Εἴ grows thus into experimental knowing 
γινώσκειν). The truth is the object of all know- 
ing, and the Christian shall be led into all truth, 
that is, he isto know thoroughly, to pass on from 
one point which he knows and whereof he has 
cognition, to another [and a deeper knowing and 
insight—M.], even by the aid of the Holy Spirit. 
If ye know that He is righteous, ye know not 
yet, but are to know that—. Hence we must not 
construe here in the Indicative (Beza, Bengel, 
Diisterdieck, Ewald, Neander and al.) but in the 
Imperative (Vulgate, Grotius, de Wette, Liicke, 
Ebrard, Huther and al.). 

That also every one who doeth right- 
eousness has been born (out) of Him.— 
Kai indicates the relation of appurtenance and 
congruity of the second to the first thought. It 
does not belong, however, to γινώσκετε, as if only 
expressing a logical relation (Diisterdieck) : if ye 
know—then ye know also (Neander) ; but it be- 
longs to the subject, πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν, and sets forth 
the relation of the two truths: God is righteous, 
and every one who doeth righteousness, is born 
of God. We have here to do with a real rela- 
tion.—'O ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is he that has the 
δικαιοσύνη within himself and causes it to be oper- 
ative in his walk, his works, his words, his con- 
duct and thinking, in his judgment, attitude, 
bearing and appearance, to come forth and be- 
come perceptible in himself. Doing is here not 
a merely outward and isolated act but an activity 
continuous and connected, haying as much 
respect to the inward as to the outward, the 
energy of something possessed inwardly, of a 
gift received, of a communicated nature and life. 
Ποιῶν is emphatic ; righteousness must be done, 
and not only lauded, confessed, preached, known, 
felt and believed. It may be done as yet im- 
perfectly, in weakness, under repeated interrup- 
tions, but every Christian must and does do right- 
eousness, πᾶς ‘‘omnis et solus” (Bengel). Nor 
is it enough to do only some parts of this right- 
eousness, respect must be had to the whole τὴν 
δικαιοσύνην. As tothe nature of this δικαιοσύνη 
we have to think of the righteousness which comes 
from God, passes before Him, is His and His 
work. It is, therefore, a righteousness, Divine 
as to its kind, an effluence of God’s primordial 
righteousness, from God Himself. It manifests 
itself in obedience to the Divine commandments, 
in shunning sin, in striving after holiness, in 
love of the brethren, in the life and growth of 
faith ; and although much be wanting in its full 
exhibition and its perfection lie far remote, still 
this is the righteousness here referred to. Com- 


pare ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ch. i. 6 and mip 


ΠΩ Gen. xviii. 19; Is. lvi. 1; Ps. xiv. 15.— 


This points to a powerful and specific cause and 
condition, without which ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is 
impossible and inconceivable: ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται 
The Present ποιῶν, and the Perfect γεγέννηται de- 
note the sequence; the first in order of existence 
is: to be born of (out of) God, the second, which 


90 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


is the effect and result of the former, is: to do 
the riyhteousness. Precisely this order was ne- 
cessarily implied in the exposition of the sub- 
stance of ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην.---- Α58 with regard 
to δίκαιος the turns δικαιοσύνη and ποιεῖν τὴν δικαι- 
οσύνην have to be taken in a full and living sense, 
so likewise the phrase ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννᾶσθαι. The 
_ reference is consequently to a beginning life, a 
birth, a coming into existence (becoming) of 
something which did not or does not yet exist; 
not only a change or an improvement, but some- 
thing altogether new—and that out of God. The 
sense of the preposition ἐξ also, has doubtless to 
be held fast; out of Him, that is out of God’s 
Self-own Holy Essence. ‘‘Nasci ex Deo est natu- 
ram Det acquirere’’ (Luther) or ‘‘constituitur in 
guadam participatione supernaturali esse divini’’ (de 
Lyra), having received a new being or nature 
out of God (Spener), perfectly analogous to 
γένησθε ϑείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, 2 Pet. i. 4.—Cf. 
Jno. iii. 8, 5, 6; i. 12,13; Tit. iii. 5; Eph. iv. 
23, 24; Rom. xii. 2; 1 Pet. i. 8, 23. There is a 
Divine seed (ch. iii. 9) in those who are born out 
of God; they have not become God, deified or 
absorbed in God or God absorbed in them, but 
only partakers of the Divine nature, germ-like, 
like new-born babes, so that a beginning has 
been made, but only a beginning, although the 
beginning of a life, Divine, coming from and lead- 
ing to God, whose perfection is not wrought ma- 
gically or by enchantment at one stroke, but is 
subject to the law of Divinely appointed growth. 
This birth out of God is a translation of man 
from death to life (ch. iii. 14), brings him to the 
Light of the world and gives him eternal life 
Noe y. 11, 20), and effects the blessed result that 
od isin us and we in Him (ch. iv, 15), as the 
children of God (ch. iii. 1, 2, 9,10), out of God 
(ch. iii. 10). But this is brought about by means 
of an ethical life-process (ch. iii. 9; v. 1). We 
become the children of God. But nothing is said 
here on this point, or on the mediation of Christ 
and faith in Him. We have therefore to set aside 
all expositions, which weaken the thought, like 
those of Socinus (‘‘ Dei similem esse”) and Rosen- 
miiller (‘‘Amari a Deo” and ‘‘ beneficiis ab eo or- 
nari,’ or introduce a foreign element, like that 
of Hilgenfeld (a destiny and necessity of nature 
represented in gnostico-dualistic manner), and 
those which misapprehend or reverse the right 
order in making the doing of righteousness the 
condition of our adoption (Socinus, Episcopius, 
Semler, al.); the false relation also of doing 
righteousness to standing in the judgment (a La- 
pide, Emser, Estius) has to be excluded as irrel- 
evant.—Liicke (2d ed.) says ‘‘properly one ought 
to have expected ὅτι πᾶς ὁ yeyevvnuévoc ἐξ αὐτοῦ 
ποιεῖ τὴν δικαιοσύνην 3 this is not correct although 
the thought is correct per se. John makes the 
perceptible and cognizable ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην 
a sure token of the hidden life of the inner man, 
which began with the birth out of God, of the 
adoption, of the life out of which death cannot 
destroy and which can glory against the judg- 
ment. The relation between γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ ϑεοῦ 
and ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is exactly like that be- 
tween κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετὰ ϑεοῦ and περιπατεῖν ἐν 
τῷ φωτί in ch. 1. 6. 
Connection with the preceding, and development in 
\ the sequel.—The rich and independent thought is 


the introduction to or the text of the next part. 
Its fundamental tone is δίκαιός ἐστι, parallel to 
φῶς ἐστι, which is a further confirmation of the 
presumption that God is the subject. It is impos- 
sible to restrict the notion δίκαιος by the side of 
the inference which is here drawn from it, to 
Justitia judicialis. Hence we must not seek or 
find an internal reciprocal relationship between 
the judgment, (to which y. 28 is supposed to refer, 
but of which nothing is said, the reference 
being simply to Christ’s Advent), and righteous- 
ness; we need not think of the judicial function 
of the Divine righteousness nor of our being 
able to stand before the righteous Judge only 
through doing righteousness. But John in con- 
cluding the first part with the strong consola- 
tion which on the ground of the walk in light, 
adverts with hopeful promise to the blessed des- 
tination of Christians, passes from the παῤῥησία 
in the Advent to the thought of the Sonship, of 
the hope, the glory and heritage of the children 
of God. This is the connection with what goes 
before. The next main part of the Epistle is ana- 
lytically divided by the development of this 
idea of a glorious birth out of God. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. God’s attribute of righteousness is not only 
energetically active, but also communicative. 

2. The import of regeneration should be laid 
hold of by its indispensable consequence; viz.: 
ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, and even its nature defined 
as a beginning of a new, Divine life. 

8. The vital power and root of a truly valid 
righteousness in our being and walking, lie not in 
man as he is, but only in God, and out of God 
only in man as he has become a Christian. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Determine [find out experimentally,—M. ] what 
thou knowest.—Not only every gift of God is 
good and perfect, but both all the good, and all 
perfection are the gifts of Him, the Righteous 
one.—God gives and man—not only has but be- 
comes [comes into existence.—M. ].—God rules 
over thee and has His work in thee, that thou 
mayest become and remain His child.—Whatever 
is Divine prompts and impels the ethical, by 
which the Divine may be identified.—The cause 
of regeneration is the righteous God, and an ethi- 
cal status is its mark and sign. 

Sprner :—No man has by nature the power to 
do right or to work righteousness, but it comes 
only from his regeneration, from Christ, who 
makes us strong by regeneration and His dwell- 
ing in us. Σ 

Lance :—The Gospel is careful with the law to 
connect the righteousness of faith with the right- 
eousness of life and therein lies a true mark of 
a sincere evangelical preacher and a sincere evan- 
gelical hearer. 

SrarkeE :—Believers are assured by their doing 
right, that. they have become the children of God 
by grace, that consequently they may joyfully 
appear before the judgment seat of God knowing 
that no Father will suffer his children to be put 
to confusion of face, and in this faith and un- 
doubting hope they may joyfully take leave of 
this world. 

Besser:—The Apostle’s rejoicing over the 


CHAP. III. 1-3. 


91 


a SS SS 


present power of the children of God over sin 
is, as it were, a ladder on which he ascends to 
the glory that is still reserved for them; and the 
hope of this future glory impels him once more 
to charge his little children to use with all dili- 
gence the Christian virtue already accorded to 
them, uninfluenced by the seducers who pre- 
tended to be able to see the Lord without holiness. 

[Ezex. Horxins:—Those who do God’s com- 
mandments, have a right of heirship and inherit- 
ance unto eternal life. For they are born of 
God and therefore heaven is their patrimony, 
their paternal estate: for the Apostle saith 
‘« Every one that doeth righteousness is born of 
God,” and if they are born of God then according 
to St. Paul’s argument Rom. viii. 17: “If chil- 


dren, then heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs 
with Christ,” who is the ‘‘heir of all things.” 
The trial of thy legitimacy, whether thou art a 
true and genuine son of God will lie upon thy 
obedience to His commands, for ‘‘in this the 
children of God are manifest and the children of 
the devil; whosoever is born of God does not 
commit sin. . . . and whosoever doeth not right- 
eousness is not of God.” 1 Jno. iii. 9.10. Now 
if by our obedience and dutifulness, it appears, 
that we are indeed the children of God, our 
Father will certainly give us a child’s portion; 
and that is no less than a kingdom. So saith our 
Saviour Luke xii. 82; ‘Fear not, little flock: for 
it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the 
kingdom.”—M. ]. 


2. The glory of the Sonship. 


Cuapter III. 1-8. 


1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed’ upon us’, that we should be 
called the sons* of God‘: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him 
2 not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God®, and it doth not yet appear® what we shall 
be: but? we know that when he shall appear®, we shall be like him; for? we shall see 
3 him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him” purifieth himself, even as 


he is pure”. 


Verse 1 15éS8wxev B.C. Sin; others, A.G. ἔδωκ εν. 


2yucv A.C.Sin; others τϑαΐ ὑμῖν; so B. K. 


the 2 pers. Plural; id¢re.—M.| 


[German: “hath given.’”—M.] 
[The latter reading probably originated in the reference to 


3@reek: τέκνα θεοῦ; German: “children of God;” the Article is superfluous and unauthorized and 
Ρ 


“children” is decidedly preferable to “ 8075." ---Μ.] 
4xai ἐσμέν atter κληθῶ μεν is inserted by A. B. C. Sin; many cursives and versions. Vulg.: ef stmus ; 


others; ef sumus. 


Erasmus took it to be an addition; the Recept. omitted it. 


The false translation of 


the Vulgate was a stumbling-block to many, also Luther, and they omitted the words accordingly. 
[The German retains καὶ ἐσμέν and renders in an independent clause: “and we are (it 7%. 6. God’s 
children).” Oecumenius explains: ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τέκνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι τε Kal κληθῆ- 
vacand Theophylact: γενέσθαι τε καὶ λογισθῆναι. Τὴ Δα ΠΟΥ [168 are decidedly in fayour of 


the genuineness of the addition —M.] 


Verse 2 [τέκνα θεοῦ; German; “children of God.”—M.| 
Ὁ German “andit hath not yet become manifest.” 


Lillie: “A Passive verb with or without an adjective, 


is employed by Syr.; Dutch, Italian verss.; Aug. Beza, Hammond, Pearson, Berleb. Bible, Bengel,’” and 
many others. He himself renders: “and it hath not yet been manifested ;” the German seeks to retain 
the Aorist in preference to the Perfect, but it is difficult to do so in idiomatic English.—M.] 

7G. K. insert δὲ after οἴδαμεν. [A. B.C. Sin. al. omit it; the insertion may be readily accounted for by 
the apparent contrast with the preceding. The German omits ὃ ὲ and begins a new sentence thus: 


“ We know etc.” —M.] 


[8havepwOy, German: “ when it shall be manifest ;* Lillie: 


“when it shall be manifested” and in para- 


phrase: “when the mystery of our future being is unveiled, this is what shall be disclosed: ‘we shall 
be like Him, whatever of glory and blessedness that involves.—M.] 


[9 German “ because.” —M. | 


Verse 3 [19German “on Him” in lieu of the ambiguous and deceptive “in him” of Εἰ. V.—M.] 
[ΠῚ German: ‘ halloweth himself even as He is holy.”—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Origin of the adoption.’ y. 1a. 

Ver. la. Behold!—John desires to call the 
attention of his readers to their filial state, 
(Mark xiii. 1; Jno. i. 29), not without his own 
amazement at its glory, whereof, he himself, as a 


1 Would it not be well to coin the word child-ship after 
the analogy of son-ship, fellow-ship, friend-ship, etc.? The 
word rendered “ adoption” denotes “ childship,” and for the 
want of such a word in English the terms “sonship ”— 
“adoption” have been used for the German “ Kindschatt.” 


Μη 


child of God, had made experience and therefore 
he uses in the sequel ἡμῖν not ὑμῖν. The former 
(noted -only by Augustine, Sander and Huther) 
should be combined with the latter (to which 
Lyra and Grotius call attention), so that the 
right view lies not midway between these two 
thoughts (Diisterdieck), but in their combina- 
tion. 

What manner of love the Father hath 
given to us.—lIloraréc, of frequent occurrence 
in the New Testament, and (according to Butt- 
mann, Lexicog. 125, 302) probably derived from 
ποῦ, πόϑεν, and ἀπὸ (πο-απός) with an inserted ὁ 
(pro-d-ire, pro-d-esse), and properly ought to be 


92 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


written ποδαπός, as it used to be written formerly, 
denotes literally wherefrom? whence? cujas? The 
question relates to extraction and race. Descent 
and quality are inquired after. So Luke i. 
29: ποταπὸς ein ὁ ἀσπασμός; Matth. viii. 27: 
ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος. Descent and extraction are 
wholly lost sight of and there remains nothing 
but kind and quality. Luke vii. 89; 2 Pet. iii. 
11; Mark xiii. 1. In the last passage the word 
slightly touches the sense of guantus. Hence it 
is wrong to translate “‘ gualem et quantum amorem”’ 
(Socinus, Episcopius, Estius), what or ‘‘how 
great love” (Liicke, de Wette, Sander, Ewald) 
although we may admit that the signification of 
‘“‘qualis” plays into that of ‘“quantus” (S. 
Schmidt, Diisterdieck, Huther).—Luther renders 
very well: ‘what glorious, sublime love!” The 
quality has, at any rate, to be retained. The 
fact, however, of its being undeserved is not im- 
plied in ποταπήν (Calvin), but rather in ἡμῖν, in- 
dignis, inimicis, peccatoribus (a Lapide), just as the 
ἀγάπη and its nature involves the idea of its great- 
ness, even as the strength and greatness, the in- 
tensiveness and extensiveness of love are concen- 
trated in Jno. iii. 16: οὕτως ἠγάπησεν ὁ Bede. 
Luther pertinently observes in his Scholia: 
“‘Usus est Johannes singulari verborum pondere: 
non dicit, dedisse nobis deum donum aliquod, sed ip- 
sam caritatem et fontem omnium bonorum, cor ipsum, 
idque non pro operibus aut studiis nostris, sed gra- 
tuito.”” ᾿Αγάπη does not mean caritatis munus 
(Beza), effectus, documentum, beneficium, token or 
proof of love (Socinus, Episcopius, Grotius, Spe- 
ner, Neander, al.); this is occasioned by δέδωκεν. 
Bengel: ‘‘non modo destinavit et contulit, sed 
etiam exhibuit.”’ God has not only given in love, 
but He has given love itself, made it our own, 
absolutely given it to us so that His love is now 
ours. [a Lapide explains ἀγάπην in the R. C. 
interest, thus: ‘i. 6. charitatem tum activam (ac- 
tum amoris Dei quo nos mire amat), tum passivam 
nobisque a Deo communicatam et infusam. Videte 
guantam charitatem—nobis—preestitit et exhibuit 
Deus, cum—charitatem creatam nobis dedit et infudit, 
quia filii Dei nominamur et sumus.” Calvin's 
turn lies hardly in the Apostle’s expression: 
“Quod dicit DATAM esse caritatem, significat: hoc 
mere esse liberalitatis, quod nos Deus pro filiis ha- 
bet.”—M.]. The Apostle, writing from a sense 
and consciousness of the adoption, says ὁ πατὴρ 
and thus points to the sequel. 

That we should be called children of 
God.—As we have not ὅτε as in Matth. viii. 27, 
the reference is not merely to the substance, the 
standing fact that we are called God’s children 
(in opposition to 8. Schmidt, Episcopius, al.); as 
we have not ὕπως, as in Jno. xi. 57, the reference 
is not purely telic, as maintained by Lange, 
Liicke, de Wette, Briickner, Neander, al., who 
are compelled to specify as the gift of love some- 
thing which is not contained in the text, 6. g. that 
of God sending the Son in order to indicate the 
purpose of our sonship. But being God’s chil- 
dren is not a gift shertly to be communicated, 
not simply a present fact, but a task and problem, 
a fact only in process of becoming, only gradually 
accomplishing, not a creation of instantaneous 
occurrence or an immediately finished act of 
creation, but a work of God passing through dif- 
ferent stages of development, and a history of 


man, a life wrought by God in man from a begin- 
ning to a high end, like the forgiveness of sins. 
Hence here, as in ch. i. 9, ἵνα signifies—that we 
should be called. Our adoption by the Father is 
the substance and aim of His love.—KadAcicfac 
(Jno. ii. 23: φίλος ϑεοῦ ἐκλήθη does not denote a 
predicate without substance, a name without a 
meaning or an empty title, for He that calls us 
children is God, and the blessed and glorious 
spirits in heaven. Then we are called so by men, 
by the brethren in earnest, by the world in 
mockery. ‘‘ Where God gives names, He always 
gives also the being [the thing signified by the 
name M.].”” Besser.—We have not the name of 
children without the sonship, even as we do not 
only call God Father; He isalso our Father. But 
the acknowledgment of this sonship given by 
God and exhibited in the life, is here brought 
out. Although Augustine is wrong (‘hie non est 
discrimen inter dici et esse”), yet is Calvin right 
(‘‘inanis titulus esse non potest”). Hence the 
Greek commentators explain: εἴδετε γὰρ ὅτι ἔδω- 
κεν ἡμῖν τέκνα αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι τε καὶ κληθῆναι (Oecu- 
menius), or καὶ λογισθῆναι (Theophyl.).—Baum- 
garten-Crusius and Neander after him, explains 
καλεῖσθαι with reference to Jno. i. 12, by ἐξουσίαν 
ἔχειν γενέσθαι, but this is only the presupposition of 
καλεῖσθαι and it is not said that we should have 
the right to call ourselves children.—The posi- 
tion τέκνα ϑεοῦ indicates the notion of the son- 
ship, the choice of the word τέκνα instead of υἱοί 
the beginning, the birth, the dependence, and 
the Genitive ϑεοῦ instead of αὐτοῦ the glory and 
highness of this sonship. Bengel: ‘‘Quid majus, 
quam Deus? que proprior necessitudo, quam filius ? 

And we are!—This adjunction, externally 
testified and internally required, is neither a 
gloss nor governed by iva (Vulgate ‘ et simus’’) 
but an independent sentence designed to give 
special prominence and testimony to the reality 
of the sonship and the essence of the name; it is 
the gladsome expression of the certainty and of 
the consciousness founded on experience respect- 
ing this gift, although not exactly a triumphant 
exclamation over a hostile world. The assump- 
tion of Ebrard that κληθῶμεν indicates the rela- 
tion of God to us and ἐσμὲν our relation to God, 
the former the fact of His being reconciled, the 
latter that of our changed nature and renovation, 
is unfounded. Both, indeed, are implied but not 
thus separated and distributed. 

Antithesis of the Sonship v. 1b. 

Therefore the world knoweth us not.— 
Διὰ τοῦτο refers back to what goes before: Be- 
cause we are the children of God, the world 
knoweth us not. The Apostle mentions a neces- 
sary consequence of our being children of God, 
viz.: the world knoweth us not. He desires 
neither to meet an objection of believers (S. 
Schmidt), nor to express a ground of consolation 
[with respect to the persecutions to which they 
are exposed on the part of the world M.] (Luther, 
Grotius, de Wette, Liicke al.), but to adjoin an 
ever-recurring truth of our experience [I should 
prefer to say with Huther that the Apostle here 
describes the contrast between believers, τέκνα 
Yeov, and the world and the greatness of the love of 
the Father who gave them that endearing name. 
M.]. Ἡμᾶς denotes the relation and attitude, 
the nature and walk of the children of God, not 


CHAP III. 1-8, 


93 


Shik nen | De aL an a ee ee 


external personality or relation.—On ὁ κόσμος 
compare notes on ch. ii. 15, and on γινώσκειν 
notes on ch. ii. 3.—‘‘The essence of the notion ὁ 
κόσμος according to John’s manner of thinking is 
antagonism to God; this,—and not the conside- 
ration of the numerical strength and influence of 
those who were opposed to the few and obscure 
Christians, and without being properly godless 
were wont to judge every thing by the standard 
of worldly wisdom (Episcopius),—is the basis 
of the Apostle’s argument.” (Diisterdieck). 
γινώσκειν signifies a knowing which moves the 
whole man, rests on personal experience, volun- 
tary agreement and lively interest, and agrees 
with the frame of mind, and the bias of life. The 
world does not understand Christians, seeks no 
intercourse with them, takes no part with them, 
or stands by them, and has no liking for them: 
all this is involved in οὐ γινώσκειν and signifies : 
does not know them [thoroughly or experimen- 
tally; the world has no conception of the spiri- 
tual nature of Christians.—M. ]. Cf. v. 18; Jno. 
xvi. 83; xv. 20, 21. Hence the explanations of 
Grotius ‘“‘non agnoscit pro suis,’ Semler “reject, 
reprobat,” Baumgarten-Crusius and others=wcei, 
are wrong. This relation subsisting between an 
ungodly world and the children of God the 
Apostle further explains in the following proposi- 
tion: 

Because it knew Him not.—’0r does not 
depend on διὰ τοῦτο; John’s purpose is to explain 
how it happens that the world does not under- 
stand the Christians, because they are children 
of God, and he observes accordingly that the fault 
lies not with the children of God, but it is the 
fault of the world itself, because it has not known 
God. Τινώσκειν of course must be taken here in 
the same sense as in the former clause and, 
neither—credere in Deum (S. Schmidt), nor—ndésse 
doctrinam, curare divinam legem, jussa Dei observare 
(Episcopius), but “the whole contrast in mind 
and bias, also hatred and persecution” (de 
Wette) are embraced in the world’s not knowing 
God, both with reference to the children of God 
and to God Himself. The conclusion is valid: 
οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν υἱοϑετήσαντα (Oecumenius), therefore 
ov γινώσκει τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ. Hence αὐτόν must de- 
signate God and not Christ. Because we are born 
of God, and have been made partakers of the Di- 
vine nature, the world knoweth not us, which did 
not know God.—The change of tense in γινώσκει 
and ἔγνω must not be overlooked. The fact of the 
world not knowing the children of God is condi- 
tioned by the fact of its not knowing God. This 
is the first, on which depends the second. The 
knowledge of God is the ground of the knowledge 
of man and the knowledge of the world, which 
are not wanting in the children of God; self- 
knowledge also depends on it. All these are 
wanting where the knowledge of God is wanting; 
there is wanting the knowledge and under- 
standing of believers and personal knowledge 
with respect to the whole and the general to 
which people belong, and with respect to the 
particular, even down to their own heart and na- 
ture. They know nothing, not even, what they 
do (Luke xxiii. 84). 

The hope of the Sonship. v. 2. 

Ver. 2. Beloved.—This address, ἀγαπητοί, 
denotes a relation in which love is experienced, 


and in the present case experience of the love of 
God, whose children they are, and of the love of 
those with whom they are connected, and ac- 
cordingly constitutes an antithesis to the pre- 
ceding clause: We are children of God and there- 
fore the world knoweth us not. . 

Now are we children of God.—The 
former ἐσμέν culminates in τέκνα ϑεοῦ and the 
preceding particle viv and is repeated after the 
parenthetical antithesis pointing first to the fact 
that the world does not know the children of 
God now, and secondly to the future. The con- 
text and position of viv require it to be taken as 
a particle of time (in opposition to de Wette: 
now, pursuant to that purpose of love). Thus it 
is emphatically asserted, that, notwithstanding 
the opposition of the world, we are already the 
children of God, although the glory of our son- 
ship is still concealed and imperfect. So Liicke 
and Diisterdieck against Huther [who denies a 
reference to the preceding verse and considers 
νῦν used with respect to the future (οὔ πω) to 
indicate the present glory of the children of 
God; adding that the Apostle before mentioning 
the future glory, notices the fact that it is as yet 
concealed.—M. ]. 

And it hath not yet been manifested 
what we shall be.—Antitheses to the pre- 
ceding are νῦν and οὔπω, ἐσμέν and ἐσόμεθα, τέκνα 
ϑεοῦ and τί, which is further answered by ὅμοιοι 
αὐτῷ, just as οὔπω ἐφανερώθη is carried further in 
ἐὰν φανερωθῇ and οἴδαμεν continued in ὀψόμεϑα. 
These antitheses, however, are not contraria, but 
developments of the present τέκνα ϑεοῦ ἐσμέν, the 
development of the adoption into the inheritance. 
The argument therefore is properly carried on 
by καὶ (in opposition to Beza, Grotius, Spener 
and others, who construe καὶ as a Hebraism in 
the sense of ἀλλά), and dé after οἴδαμεν is rightly 
wanting (contrary to S. Schmidt, Liicke, Sander 
and others).—Oirw ἐφανερώθη points to something 
actually existing but as yet concealed. For 
gavepovv means to make manifest, to bring to 
light, so as to be open to sight and to be known; 
not from the word itself, but from the context it 
has to be determined whether this manifestation 
is to take place factually, by means of historical 
development and events, or logically by means 
of instruction and teaching; here the former 
course is very distinctly marked (so Huther in 
opposition to Ebrard) so also ch. ii. 19; Jno. ii. 
11; vii. 4; xvii. 6; xxi. 1. The context in like 
manner implies to whom this manifestation is to 
be made, if it is not explicitly stated. The pri- 
mary reference is here probably to the world, 
the secondary to believers (Diisterdieck). The 
interrogative (τί ἐσόμεθα) presents no difficulty, 
and contains nothing to favour Ebrard’s opinion, 
since not only after verbs of knowing, inquiring 
etc., and in direct questions, but also in cases 
where classical writers would certainly have 
used 6, rz, the N. T. writers use the interrogative 
pronoun; cf. Winer p. 181; Buttmann p. 216. On 
the thought itself compare Col. iii. 3 (ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν 
κέκρυπται σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ ἐν τῷ ϑεῷ) Rom, viii. 17 
(εἰ δὲ τέκνα, καὶ κληρονόμοι--- ϑεοῦ, συγκληρονόμοι δὲ 
Χριστοῦ) and v.18 (οὐκ ἄξια τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν 
καιροῦ πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς 
ἡμᾶς), also Gal. iv. 1 (ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόμες 
νήπιός ἐστι, οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου κύριος πάντων ὧν.) 


94 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


ee -_0,.—  — mano >. 


It is important to remember that what is said is: 
‘it has not yet appeared what we shall be” and 
not, that ‘‘ we shall be something which as yet we 
are not”: οὕπω negatives not the being, but the 
having appeared, the being manifested. There is 
only one Divine sonship (child-ship); non dantur 
gradus υἱότητος (Calov). But it has its status or 
stages, its unfolding and development, the deve- 
lopment of the inner being of a child of God and 
the unfolding of their manifold privileges and 
possessions. ‘The future already exists in the 
germ and is latent in the present” (Diisterdieck). 
Augustine: “μα est ergo, quod jam expectamus, 
si jam filii Dei sumus ? quid autem erimus aliud, quam 
jilii Dei?” However different the future state may 
be from the present and although we must dis- 
tinguish the one from the other, the former is 
not absolutely new [Huther—M.]. This is the 
force of οὔπω ἐφανερώθη, which only brings out 
and opens to sight that which is concealed, and 
this is the ἐσμέν become ἐσόμεθα. [Oecumenius: 
TO γὰρ viv ἄδηλον φανερὸν γενήσεται, ἐκείνου ἀπο- 
καλυπτομένου. ὅμοιοι γὰρ αὑτῷ ἀναφανέντες τὸ τῆς 
υἱοθεσίας λαμπρὸν παραστήσομεν. οἱ γὰρ υἱοὶ πάντες 
ὅμοιοι τῷ TaTpi.i—M.]. But what does that con- 
sist in? 

We know that when it shall be mani- 
fested, we shall be like (similar to) Him.— 


Οἴδαμεν signifies certainty of knowing, not only 


guess-knowledge (Jachmann), and knowing par- 
ticipated in not only by the Apostles (Episcopius), 
but by all Christians (Calvin), by all of whom it is 
said: τέκνα ϑεοῦ ἐσμέν. The object of that know- 
ing is: ὅτε ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεϑα. The occurrence 
of this future condition is indicated by ἐὰν φανε- 
pol. As we have ἐὰν and not ὅταν the reference 
is not only to the time when (Socinus and al.), 
but to the reality of the matter, cf. notes on ch. 
ii. 28. Also Jno. xii. 32; xiv. 3; xvi. 7. The Vul- 
gate gives the precise shade of thought: cum ap- 
paruerit, bringing out the force of the Fut. exact. 
applied in the Subj. Aorist. The subject of φανε- 
ρωθῇ is τί ἐσόμεθα, which is clear from the unmis- 
takable reference to ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα. No 
expositor has seriously thought of G'od, but se- 
veral supply Christ (Augustine, Bede, Calvin, 
Caloy and others.).—avepovoba τί ἐσόμεθα coin- 
cides with the coming of Christ and qguoad rem, 
it is very possible to think here of Christ. But 
davepovv would then have to be explained here of 
His appearing in glory, whereas it is used in y. 
5 of His appearing in the flesh and expressly 
referred to Him by the demonstrative pronoun 
ἐκεῖνος, and the same verb had different subjects 
in the two sentences immediately succeeding each 
other. We may admit here ‘the possibility of 
that reference, the reality of which” is stated in 
y. 5, but have to maintain with the greater num- 
ber of expositors that the concinnity of the dic- 
tion requires us to supply to φανερωθῇ the same 
subject which belongs to ἐφανερώθη, namely τί 
ἐσόμεθα, especially since the latter is explained by 
ὅμοιοι αὑτῷ ἐσόμεθα; the latter two as well as the 
two forms of φανεροῦσθαι are correlatives. ()6- 
cumenius excellently remarks: τὸ γὰρ viv ἄδηλον 
φανερὸν γενήσεται, ἐκεῖνου ἀποκαλυπτομένου: ὅμοιοι 
γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀναφανέντες τὸ τῆς υἱοθεσίας λαμπρὸν 
παραστήσομεν. οἱ γὰρ υἱοὶ πάντως ὅμοιοι τῷ πάτρι.---- 
Ὅμοιος is resembling, similar to and not—equal 
to (Sander); it is not—ioog [the English ‘‘like” 


is ambiguous signifying both ‘similar’? and 
‘*equal.”” I have retained “like” in the text, but 
given ‘‘similar” in brackets.—M.]. Of Christ 
Paul says: τὸ εἶναι ica Ge Phil. ii. 6; and His 
enemies: ἴσον τῷ Sed, Jno. v. 18. Luke calls υἱοὶ 
τοῦ ϑεοῦ---ἰσάγγελοι but not ἴσοι eqo.—Recollect 
the controversy of ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον.--- 
Ὅμοιος signifies similarity in external form and 
appearance (ὁράσει, Rev. iv. 3; cf. i. 18, 15; ix. 
7, 10, 19), and then in kind and authority (Jno. 
viii. 55; Rev. xiii. 4; xviii. 18). It is certain 
that “the creature will never become Creator” 
(Luther I), and ‘“‘Non erimus idem, quod Deus, 
sed similes erimus Dei” (Luther, Schol.). That 
the connection requires us to to apply αὐτῷ to 
God and not to Christ, is clear and almost uni- 
versally acknowledged; hence Bengel says very 
pointedly : “1260, cujus sumus filii.” Now although 
the notion of resemblance to God is somewhat 
vague, the question arises whether the context 
does not shed light on the subject. Huther in- 
deed rightly observes that commentators are not 
warranted in arbitrarily restricting it, but the at- 
tempt of deriving more light from the context 
must not be absolutely repudiated. Much will 
depend on the right understanding of the ad- 
joined sentence. 

Because we shall see Him as He is.— 
The annexation by ὅτι points to a casual relation 
of resemblance to God and seeing God. This is 
almost universally acknowledged. Hence it is 
wrong to take ὅτιξεεἀλλὰ καὶ (Oecumenius), or= 
ὅτε καὶ (Scholiast. 11.}, or=et (Luther, Schol.), 
for this disturbs and negatives the internal rela- 
tion of the two. Nor does ὅτε describe the ‘* Mo- 
dus hujus transformationis” (Lyra). It is most 
natural to take the internal relation of resem- 
blance to God and seeing God, so that the cause of 
resemblance to God lies in seeing God: we shall 
be similar to God, because we shall see Him face 
to face. For grammatically and dialectically this 
course is pointed out to us. We shall be similar 
to Him, because we shall see Him, says the Apos- 
tle, and not: ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν, ὅτε ὅμοιοι αὑτῷ ἐσόμεθα 
(Diisterdieck). The resemblance to God is the 
end of the love of God, and not the seeing God 
which is simply the instrument of the former. Cf. 
Jno. xvii. 24. As γινώσκειν conduces to having 
(ἔχειν), 80 seeing God effects the being, and more 
particularly the being similar to Him. Hence 
the internal relation of the two is reversed if ὅτι 
is supposed to add only a ““ testimonium aut sig- 
num similitudinis’’ (Carpzov), not the cause of it, 
or if the seeing God is taken as the effect, from 
which is inferred the cause, resemblance of God 
(Calvin, Socinus, Episcopius, Rickli). Nor may 
we infer with Huther that because we shall see 
Him, therefore we know now (οἴδαμεν) that we 
shall be similar to Him; particularly as that 
knowledge rests on the sonship, which is a fact, 
and the word of promise given to the children of 
God. But this seeing must be taken in the full ac- 
ceptation of the word, a real perfect seeing in the 
resurrection-body, and not only a real knowing 
The believer is in the σῶμα πνευματικόν (1 Cor. xv. 
44) and sees face to face (1 Cor. xiii. 12); it is 
“«maxime practica visio, summi boni αἴσϑησις plenis- 
sima"’ (J. Lange).—The object of this seeing is 
God, καθώς ἐστι : “ΑΒ He is not only in His Image 
etc., but in Himself and in His Being, His perfect 


CHAP. III. 1-8. 


95 


majesty and glory (Spener). Such a seeing of 
God is a real ground of resembling God accord- 
ing to Rey. xxii. 4: καὶ ὄψονται τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτῦυ 
καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ TOV μετώπων 
αὐτῶν. 2 Cor. iii. 18: ἡμεῖς---ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ 
προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν 
εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, καθάπερ 
ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος. Hence Bengel: ‘ex aspectu 
similitudo.” Spener: ‘‘The seeing is the cause 
of the likeness.”’ So likewise de Wette, Neander, 
Diisterdieck, Ebrard. The seeing God must react 
on him who sees by glorifying him into that which 
is the object of his seeing, making him similar to 
Him whom he sees. Thus is fulfilled the pro- 
mise that we shall be ϑείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως (2 Pet. 
i. 4). Hence we must not think with Ebrard of 
“the light-nature of God,” or with de Wette of 
“the δόξα of God,” and still less with S. Schmidt 
and Diisterdieck only of ch. ii. 29: δικαιός ἐστιν, 
but rather with the Greek expositors (συμβασι- 
λεύσομεν καὶ συνδοξασθήσομεν αὐτῷ) also of our 
joint inheritance with Christ, since ch. ii. 28 
(cf. Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12) suggests as 
much, and we may say with Luther that we have 
become lords of sin, of death and the devil. But 
although Calov clearly passes the bounds of exe- 
gesis in his dogmatical thought (‘‘ratione mentis 
sapientia, ratione voluntatis sanctitate et Justitia, ra- 
tione corporis immortalitate, ratione utriusque gloria 
et felicitate eterna deo similes erimus’’), those who 
are held fast in the enlightenment of the under- 
standing by no means do justice to the text; and 
of these men Oertel caps the climax in his philo- 
sophical exposition: “1 believe that the refer- 
ence here is simply to the higher perfection of 
the knowledge of the Christian religion and the 
sense to be as follows: Some day, after several 
generations and centuries, mankind, which as 
yet clings overmuch to the spirit of coarseness, 
will be more enlightened, ennobled and happy 
and thus by means of the more perfect light that 
is to rise, attain to a perfect knowledge of the 
plan of God and the purpose of Jesus.— Ah, John, 
if thou hadst had a presentiment of the bloody 
Niceeades, Costnitziades, Dragoonades, edicts, ete. 
and the times when thousands were slaughtered 
in honour of religion!—But—thy presentiment 
of the education of mankind in religion, virtue 
and philanthropy will yet be perfected by the 
Providence of the Almighty Father.” [Augus- 
tine (Tract. in Ep. Jno. iv. 5) who however un- 
derstands αὐτῷ and αὐτόν of Christ, exclaims: 
‘Ergo visuri sumus quandam visionem, fratres, 
quam nec oculus vidit, nee auris audivit, nec in cor 
hominis ascendit: visionem quandam, visionem pre- 
cellentem omnes pulchritudines terrenas, auri, argen- 
ti, nemorum atque camporum, pulchritudinem maris 
et aéris, pulchritudinem solis et lune, pulchritudinem 
angelorum, omnia superantem, quia ex ipsa pulchra 
sunt omnia.”’—M. ]. 

The power of this hope. v. 3. 

Ver. 3. And every one that hath this 
hope on Him, halloweth himself.—With 
καὶ Which is not—oiv, John annexes the sentence 
expressing ‘the moral effect of Christian hope” 
{Huther), which although it contains an exhorta- 
tion in point of sense, yet formally expresses it 
as a fact and that more emphatically, since it in- 
timates in decided terms that he who does not 

26 


hallow himself, surrenders that hope in ingrati- 
tude. For πᾶς ὁ ἔχων is omnis et solus; “ Every 
one—and only such an one; for as this hope (v. 2) 
peculiarly and exclusively belongs to the chil- 
dren of God, they and they only enjoy the power 
of such a hope whether it is to exhibit itself in 
sanctification, as here, or to afford patienee and 
joyfulness (Rom. viii. 14 sqq.; 28 sqq.)” (Diis- 
terdieck), and ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ 7. e. ϑεῷ denotes ‘the ful- 
crum”’ (Huther), or still better ‘‘the real founda- 
tion of this hope” (J. Lange), the ground and 
soil out of which it grows up, so that S. Schmidt 
rightly observes: ‘‘Deus gignit spem.” Grotius 
weakens the thought: ‘‘Sicwt Deus eam spem vult 
concept.” Besides ἐλπίζειν én’ αὐτῷ (God) occurs 
Rom. xy. 12 and ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ 
ϑεῷ 2 Tim. vi. 17. although ἔχειν ἐλπίδα ἐπὶ cum 
dat., occurs only here and with εἰς ϑεὸν Acts 
xxiv. 15.—'O ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα is not the same as 
ὃ ἐλπίζων, the latter denoting only the act of hope, 
but the former describing hope as a permanent 
property, as a fixed possession, so that the act of 
hoping is uninterrupted and lasting. Hence it 
is neither necessary nor correct to explain ἔχειν, 
as holding fast or preserving (Benson, Spener), 
or to take here ἐλπίδα as the object of hope, that 
which one is objectively entitled to hope (Ebrard). 
Τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην naturally leads us to think of 
ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα. This was y. 2 the object and 
substance of οἴδαμεν. Now it is designated by 
ἔχειν τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἐπ’ αὐτῷ as the object of a 
yearning desire in the power of God, in order to 
bring out the purifying reaction in our earthly 
life. The mere ἐλπίζειν would be incongruous 
with the dyvifew ἑαυτὸν, which is affected and to 
be effected. Primarily, however, this hope and 
self-sanctification only are here connected (Hof- 
mann), but the state of having hope and partici- 
pation in this hope are presupposed in the case 
of the acts of such sanctifying of oneself. “μὲ 
habet hance spem et credit, se esse filium Dei, et ex- 
pectat donec fides sua reveletur, is sine dubio ita ac- 
cendetur spe illa, ut se purificet, nec involvat se sor- 
dibus carnis, sed carnem mortificabit’’ (Luther). 
Self-sanctification necessarily combined with 
Christian hope (de Wette) is its effectws (Hunnius). 
Hope is the mother of sanctification, not the re-- 
verse, as Grotius maintains. Nor is sanctifica- 
tion the condition of the fulfilment of this hope 
(Liicke and several Roman Catholic commenta- 
tors), nor must we find here the combination of 
both views (Schlichting, Episcopius). ‘Ayvifew 


from ἁγνός---καϑαρός (Suidas), WFQ (Numb. 
iT 


viii. 21; vi. 2, 38; Ps. xi. 7) clean, pure; applied: 
in the New Testament to wisdom (Jas. iii. 47), 
to one fulfilling a vow (Acts xxi. 24, 26; xxiv. 
18), to the Christian walk (1 Pet. i. 22; Jas. iv. 
8; 2 Cor. vi. 6; 1 Tim. ν. 22), and to the chaste: 
(Tit. 11. 5; 2 Tim.-iv. 12; v. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 2). It 
signifies accordingly ἐλευθερία παντὸς μολυσμοῦ 
σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος (Phavorinus), ἡ τῶν ἁμαρτη- 
μάτων ἀποχή (Clement. Alex.). Hence it is the: 
opposite of impure, and ἅγιος the opposite of pro- 
fane, although the latter denotes inward impurity 
and the former outward profanity [pollution] as: 
a consequence and in a secondary sense. The 
reference to God, who is δίκαιος and whom we are 
to resemble, necessitates us not to restrict the 


96 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


meaning of ἁγνίζειν to castificare cet: but 
to take it in a wider sense like καθαρίζειν (ch. i. 
7, 9.). ‘Hoe non tantum de illa turpitudine carnis 
intelligendum est, sed de omnibus passionibus animi 
vitiosis, ira, avaritia, invidia, odio, superbia, gloriz 
cupididate ete.”’ (Luther). The object of this hal- 
lowing is ἑαυτὸν, that is to say our own self, and 
not only particular details of our life or our out- 
ward life. The exhortations of Peter (2 Pet. iii. 
18, 14) and Paul (2 Cor. vii. 1) are analogous in 
point of matter. The Present denotes uninter- 
rupted self-purification (Beza, Spener, Grotius, 
al.), because the Divine life in us constantly en- 
counters impurity and unrighteousness and be- 
cause these must be done away (Diisterdieck). 
But this self-purification does not proceed from 
our own self in the same manner asit bears upon 
it; hence there is no αὐτὸς by the side of ἑαυτόν. 
Augustine pointedly says in this respect: ‘Quis 
non castificat nisi Deus? Sed Deus te nolentem non 
castificat. Ergo quod adjungis voluntatem tuam Deo, 
castificas te ipsum. Castificas te, non de te, sed de 
illo, qui venit, ut habitet inte. Tamen ‘quia agis 
thi aliquid voluntate, ideo et (ἰδὲ aliquid tributum est.” 
The power, the impulse and initiative of self- 
purification do not reside in the liberum arbitrium 
of man, but in that on which rests the hope 
which impels self-purification. [See Huther.— 
M. }. 

ae as He is holy.—’Exeivoc is Christ, ac- 
cording to the constant use of that word in jux- 
taposition with αὐτὸς, in the writings of John. 
Cf. ch. ii. 6. While the context required us to ap- 
ply αὐτὸς to God, ἐκεῖνος may and must be applied 
to Christ, as the more remote subject. We can- 
not refer both to Christ (Aretius, Estius, Calvin), 
or both to God (Lyra, Socinus, al.). Christ is 
the pattern, and expressly shows us how we may 
become similar to God. If the Apostle had said 
only: καθὼς ἐκεῖνος, we should then have been 
obliged to supply ἁγνίζειν. This is impossible, 
and the Apostle therefore adjoins dyvé¢ ἐστε; pu- 
rity belongs to Him essentially, He is absolutely 
and originally holy and righteous, ‘in most per- 
fect harmony with the original righteousness as 
well as the original purity of the Father” (Diis- 
terdieck) see vv. 5, 7, ch. 11. 1. ‘The ἁγνότης is 
an attribute inhering in Christ” (Liicke), and 
ἐστι, not: ἦν, indicates an uninterrupted and per- 
manent condition (Jno. i. 18). There is no rea- 
son why καβὼς should be explained by quando- 
quidem and the purity of Christ should be con- 
strued into a second motive of self-purification 
(as Ebrard does). Even the externally direct 
relation to Christ is sufficiently manifest to the 
specifically Christian way of thinking, in virtue 
of the position of Christ as our only and eternal 
Mediator, and indispensable to John’s manner of 
contemplation; the immutable state of Christ is 
the perfect standard of Christians, and not only 
an outward example set before us, but a vital 
θυ. VOmiig ts li. 1, GF. 7, ἘΠῚ ὟΣ dirs 
[that is: the purity of Christ is the immutable 
and perfect standard and pattern according to 
which Christians should shape and mould their 
whole life, not only outwardly in acts, but in- 
wardly in the disposition of the heart and the 
determination of the will—M.]. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The state of our being the children of God 
is a gift of the preéminent love of God; this is a 
point to be insisted upon in opposition to Pelagius 
and all Pelagian errors. A chaste exegesis re- 
quires us not to go beyond this general character 
of this passage and neither to beat (with Calvin) 
with it ‘the sophists’’ who postulate the foreseen 
future dignity of those whom God adopts, nor to 
find here the Lutheran principle ‘ regeneratio 
precedit fidem,” while the (German) Reformed 
hold: “fides precedit regenerationem.”? Here is 
simply the assertion of the prevenient love of the 
Father as the cause of our adoption, as in 
ch. iy. 10. 

2. But not only from God, but from God only, 
from God exclusively proceedeth all the divine life, 
which passes before him. Our life of faith takes 
us back to Him, the Father, whose Nature is 
love. 

8. Christianity brings not new information 
but a new life, not a new doctrine but a new 
nature, which like the natural, bodily birth has 
however its growth and development from the 
hidden, germ-like beginning to the most glorious 
perfection. : 

4. The world with all its glory does neither 
understand the kingdom of God nor the people 
and history of this kingdom; here is the ground 
and beginning of all enmity against the Church 
of Jesus and Christian Church-ordinances (Luke 
xxiii. 34). Our Lord’s prayer: iva ὃ κόσμος πιστεύσῃ 
—Jno. xvii. 21, does not contradict the language 
of John. Christ adverts to the means designed 
to break through the mind and hardness of the 
world, while John here bears testimony to the 
mind and hardness of the world without intending 
to exclude that they may and should be counter- 
acted and that not in vain. 

5. But the first thing the world ought to be 
helped to get is that it may know God and the 
Divine. The knowledge of God, which however 
is only excited under the influence and manifes- 
tations of His love, conditions the knowledge of 
His people and kingdom. 

6. The adoption of God has a history from its 
first beginning to its perfected glorification in the 
likeness of God, which takes place in consequence 
of the perfect vision of God, the seeing God 
effecting the transformation into the Image of 
God. 

7. That which one day will become perfect 
in seeing God must begin here on earth in faith, 
and the glorification into the Image of God has 
its beginning in the sanctification wrought on 
earth. But this does by no means put the 
sanctificatio in the power of man. For first it does 
not go before the justificatio (as is assumed by 
Roman Catholics) and secondly it has respect only 
to those who are born of God and takes place only 
by means of the power conveyed and appropriated 
in regeneration; consequently although it takes 
place with our own power, yet is this power not 
originally our own but only bestowed by the grace 
of God and made our own in faith, so that Wolf 
is perfectly right in saying: ‘‘aliud est δικαιοῦν, 


CHAP. III. 159: 


97 


ae aay aR RSIS al 0a Ee TTT 


aliud ἁγνίζειν, prius illud in horvinem non cadit,— 
ut vero posterius.”” Compare the quotation from 
Augustine in Hzegetical and Critical on vy. 3. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Two wonderful things: 1. The love of God which 
desires to adopt us aschildren; 2. The perverse- 
ness of the world which does not know such a 
Lord.—Art thou more astonished at God’s loving 
attitude to the world, or at the world’s hateful 
attitude to God and His children? Dost thouthink 
it more strange that God treats thee as a child than 
that the world does not and will not understand 
thee? Dost thou not seethat it is more natural 
and reasonable that the world is against thee than 
that God is for thee?—See that thou find thy 
way through all the proofs of the love of God 
even to that of His adoption of thee and through 
all the enmity of the world even tothe knowledge 
of its ignorance and want of understanding! He 
only that does the former is able to do the 
latter.—Think of thy own and thy children’s 
adoption by God and inquire even in the case of 
one who is distasteful to thee, whether he is not 
as well as thou a child of God, and perhaps better 
entitled to be one than thou art thyself. This is 
very important and profitable for one’s own dis- 
cipline, the education of one’s children and one’s 
intercourse with and among men.—Hope for the 
future, but do not expect to reap hereafter with- 
out sowing now; wouldst thou hereafter see God 
and become like Him it is necessary for thee to 
begin here to purify thyself by strenuous appli- 
cation.—Thy adoption rests on the foundation of 
God’s eternal love, reaches even into God’s eternal 
felicity, but in this temporal present and the 
present transitoriness it may be lost andtherefore 
must be preserved all the infirmity of thy own 
flesh and all the enmity of the world notwith- 
standing.—Happy is the man whose joy flows 
from the grateful love of God and whose troubles 
proceed from a hostile world, but woe to him, 
whose joy is from beneath and whose troubles 
come from above, who is the friend of the world 
and the enemy of God, because he will not be 
His child.—At peace with God and at war with 
the world is a wholesome foundation for the 
alternatives of joy and trouble in thy life-—The 
import of our adoption by God: 1. Its Origin— 
the love of God. 2. Its Opposite—an ignorant 
world without understanding. 3. Its hope—blessed 
likeness to God. 4. Its power—the zeal of self- 
purification.—Vital questions and answers for 
the guidance of life. 1. Whois for thee? God 
in His eternal love. 2. Who is against thee? 
The world in its short-sightedness. 3. Whence? 
From God. 4. Whither? To God’s glory. 5. How? 
In the work of sanctification. 


Ciemens Romanus:—How blessed and how 
wonderful are the gifts of God! Life in immor- 
tality, splendour in righteousness, truth in joy, 
faith in confidence, chastity in holiness—all these 
are goods present to our mind. 

Curysostom:—Those who depise and deride 
us, know not who we are, citizens of heaven, 
belonging to an eternal fatherland, associates of 
the Cherubim; but they will know it in the day 
of judgment when they will exclaim with sighs 


and amazement, these are they whom we used to 
despise and deride. 

[Casstoporus :—Let us therefore so live, that 
when He shall come again, we may be able to 
behold Him, as He is, in all the fulness of His 
grace and glory.—M. ] 

AuGustTINE:—The whole life of a Christian is 
a holy longing. What we long for, we do not 
yet see; but by longing thou art enlarging thy- 
self so that when it is visible, thou mayest be 
filled therewith.—It is God alone who purifies 
us; but He does not purify thee, thyself unwill- 
ing; thou purifiest thyself, but not of thyself, 
but of Him [de Illo] who comes to dwell in thee. 

Luruer:—If God were strictly to reckon with 
us, He would owe us nothing but hell; butif He 
gives us heaven, it is of grace. 

STarKE:—Dost thou bear here the image of 
the devil and thinkest to become like Christ 
there? Ο, folly! O, deceit! Without the reno- 
vation of the divine Image none can attain to the 
glory of God.—Without purification hope of the 
future glory is impossible. The hope of the im- 
pure is daring, impudence and insolence.—Our 
Christianity is not so much a being pure as a con- 
tinuous purifying oneself.—Believers purify not 
only one thing or another, but themselves, wholly, 
body and soul. The main work lies within and 
in the soul.—O, the shamefulabuse of the Gospel! 
to be ever appealing to Christ and His merits, 
and yet never to follow His example! 


DanteL:—Christian, whose is the best nobility ? 
His, who is born of God. Who is the most hon- 
oured man? He whom God regards in grace.—A 
missionary in India (Ziegenbalg) is translating 
the New Testament with the assistance of a 
native. Coming to this verse the Hindoo youth 
translates: that we may be allowed to kiss his 
feet. The missionary asks: Why do you render 
thus? The Indian replies: A child! that is too 
much! too high!—That had never entered into a 
heathen’s heart. 

STEINHOFER:—A child of God is always an 
enigma to the world. 


Hevupner:—The children of God bear the im- 
age, the glory of the Father, enjoy his whole 
fatherly love and are destined to own what He 
owns. All this God bestows upon us, apostates 
and former enemies. Every one is asked to 
become such a child.—The Christians should 
have called themselves the children of God? 
’Twere pitiable indeed, if they did assume this 
title and as it were raise themselves to the divine 
nobility, and worse than if a fool would presume 
to call himself baron or count. We should be 
called thus by God and the heavenly children of 
God; in the Bible the name and the thing are 
one; the Bible does not know empty trifles.— 
The sonship is nothing tkat dazzles the eye, fas- 
cinates and attracts in a worldly point of view; 
it is rather something that is hidden, The world 
has no eye for it; why? because it knows not God, 
whereas we see in God the highest and most glo- 
rious good, and deem that only glorious which 
comes from God.—-The Christian is quiet, calm, 
courageous under ail the want of appreciation he 
experiences at the hands of the world; it neither 
surprises nor disturbs him; being misunderstood 
by the world cannot injure him.—Christians are 


98 THE FIRST EPISTLE 


GENERAL OF JOHN. 


the children of a prince, who are obliged to travel 


in lowly garb, incognito, and as it were in order 
to be tried, through a foreign country before they 
take possession of their kingdom. A secret, in- 
ward sense of his sonship accompanies the Chris- 
tian on his journey through the world, through its 
busy noise; in his heart he walks with God—vir- 
tue is not to become a display and an ostentation, 
therefore the children of God have neither coat 
of arms nor the badge of an order. The future 
dignity of Christians cannot be guessed from his 
appearance any more than it could be determined 
from the appearance of Christ in His manger- 
cradle. — They are not condemned to eternal 
obscurity.—O day beyond compare when God 
will call His children, saying; Come forth from 
your obscurity, rise from your lowliness!— 
The promises of Christianity are transcendently 
glorious; Christians are not to be like the 
blessed, the perfected saints or the angels, but 
like God; what man could have laid hold of this 
daring hope without revelation ?—The Christian 
should, as it were, keep himself up in a state of 
excitement. He is terrified at the thought: 
What? Shouldst thou exchange thy heavenly 
birthright for the world’s mess of pottage? de- 
nounce thy faith and lose thy Christian rank for 
the lust of the flesh, mammon or worldly honour ? 
—Sanctification, though it does not acquire salva- 
tion (for it is the gift of grace), yet preserves it. 
Purification continues day by day; we are often 
polluted. 

Exsrarp:—Our future glory is not an object of 
curiosity, not an object for inquisitiveness to be 
exercised about.—Not to purify oneself is tanta- 


mount to saying to God: “1 do not want the 
jewel which thou holdest up before my eyes as 
the most precious jewel and promisest one day 
to give me: to be freed from sin I do not esteem 
a jewel.” 

Besser:—Says David as a Christian before 
Christ: ‘‘lamasawonderuntomany,” Ps. 1xxi. 7; 
much more are Christians after Christ the real 
children of wonder. The world, indeed, which 
will remain in the Wicked One, sees in the name 
of our sonship nothing but an empty, imaginary 
title. —Even though rejuvenated to the state of 
apostolical power and consecration the Church 
would yet have the world—although against her, 
yet not only outside of her (for bad fish also are 
found in the net), and woe to her, if she were 
ever to forget in the time of her militant state 
that her holiness is not perfected in those who are 
sanctified but only in Him who sanctifies them, 
and that in the administration of discipline over 
her members with which she is solemnly charged, 
she must use the sword of the Spirit, which is the 
Word of God for the condemnation of sin and 
the salvation of sinners, and not the winnowing 
shovel for cleaning the threshing-floor.—John, in 
particular, cherishes the most profound convic- 
tion that there is only one life for the children of 
God in time and in eternity, and he knows of no 
future happiness but that which, like the rose in 
the bud, is already contained germ-like in faith. 
—As the eye cannot endure the presence of the 
smallest particle of dust but sheds tears until it 
is clear again, so also the Christian’s eye of hope 


eagerly looking forward to the coming glory will 
not tolerate the presence of a particle of the 


world’s dust, and if any fly into it, it contracts 
with the keenest sensibility and the Lord gives 
tears of penitence which wash away the dust.— 

THoLuck:—How blessed is the lot of a believmg 
disciple of the Saviour. 

1. How blessed such a disciple is even now. Who 
recognizes in mankind, as we see it, who recog- 
nizes in it a family of God? The heathen, when 
they saw how Christians were so intimately united 
in the bonds of so novel a life, exclaimed; ‘* See, 
how they love one another !—Blissful joy and as- 
tonishment at one and the same time. A child- 
like mind cannot understand how and why it was 
thought worthy of so much grace and fayour. 

2. How blessed he will be hereafter. If you like, 
you may call it a defiance, but it is a divine defi- 
ance, as Luther says: ‘‘That faith gives man a 
defiant heart toward God and toward all crea- 
tures.”’ But what is the centre of all the hope of 
these poor and miserable people? is it honour, 
glory, enjoyment? Certainly. Rom. ii, 7-10. 

3. Whereto that faith and this hope impel him. 
It cannot be the centre of Christian longing and 
hope in the hour of death that we shall see again 
our loved ones, but its centre is rather that we 
shall see Him again. Does it well forth from a 
weakly sense, or from that manly-strong sense, that 
seeing Him and to be like Him, freedom from sim and 
error, are one and the same thing? Purify your 
faith, steel your hope in the faith and hope of the 
disciple whom you regard only too often as the 
preacher of a weakly, morbid love.—That resem- 
blance will not fall to thy share without thy own 
will. Thou must feel within thee the thirst for 
it and ask and examine thyself with holy love, 
what is still unclean in me ?—Compare the notes 
on vy. 4-10. 

Brarowsky:—The Holy Communion a glorifi- 
cation of the Triune God: 1. in that the T'riune 
God glorifies Himself in it; 2. in that we glorify 
thereby the Triune God. 

GENZKEN (Baptismal address):—What a gift! 
what a task! what a blessed end even for this 
child. 

[Burxirr :— We shall be like him: in holiness 
as well as in happiness; as well in purity as im- 
mortality.—M. ] 

[Secker:—To be ‘like God” implies in few 
words everything desirable, that ever so many 
words can express.—M. ] 

[Be. Conyseare:—The state of good men in 
the other world will carry with it a resemblance 
not in degree, but in kind, to the absolutely per- 
fect Being, in those perfections of which man is 
capable: and that these will be produced in us 
by ‘seeing God as He 15: that is, by a vastly 
more distinct and more full sight of Him, than 
the present condition of human nature will admit 
of.—M. 

a :—And every man that hath this 
hope of seeing Christ, and of being like Him 
‘‘purifieth himself.’ The felicity, which the Gos- 
pel teacheth us to expect in the world to come, is 
not that of a Mohammedan paradise, in which 
animal pleasures are the chief enjoyments. The 
happiness of the children of God in the kingdom 
of their Father will consist in being like Christ, 
not only in respect of His immortality, but in 
respect of his transcendent virtues, especially 
His boundless benevolence. And the joy, which 


CHAP III. 4-10. 


99 


"Th Tt tmnt) bt ln ti ee ee 


will flow from the possession and exercise of vir- 
tues similar to Christ’s is so great, that no one, 
who hopes to become like Christ in virtue and 
happiness, will indulge himself inthe unrestrained 
enjoyment of sensual pleasures; but will purify 
himself from the immoderate desire of those plea- 
sures, in imitation of the purity of Christ.— Puri- 
Jieth himself, namely, from the lusts of the flesh 
and from every sin. The Apostle, as Beza has 
observed, does not say, ‘“‘hath purified himself,” 
but “ purifieth himself,” to show that it is a good 
man’s constant study to purify himself, because 
in this life no one can attain unto perfect purity. 
By this text therefore, as well as by, che ἃ; Ss 
those fanatics are condemned, who imagine they 
are able to live without sin.—M. ] 

[Horstey :—Would God a better conformity to 
the example of his purity, than actually obtains, 
were to be found in the lives of nominal Chris- 
tians! the numbers would be greater, which 
might entertain a reasonable hope that they shall 
be made like to Him when He appeareth. But 
thanks be to God, repentance, in this as in other 
cases, genuine, sincere repentance, shall stand 
the sinner in the stead of innocence: the sinner 
is allowed to wash the stains, even of these pollu- 
tions, in the Redeemer’s blood.—M. ] 

[Compare also the thoughtful lecture of Joun 
Foster on 1 Jno. iii. 2: ‘Our Ignorance of our 
Future Mode of Existence.’’—M. ] 

[Ez. Hopxins:—We shall see Him as He is: 
we must not understand it as if we could ever 
arrive to such a capacity as to see and know God 
as He is in His Infinite Essence: for God’s Es- 
sence being altogether indivisible, to know God 
essentially, were to know Him comprehensively ; 


to know Him, as much as He is to be known in 
Himself; that is, to know Him as much as He 
knows Himself; which is impossible, for no finite 
understanding can comprehend an infinite object. 
And, yet, our sight and knowledge of God shall 
so far surmount those dim and glimmering dis- 
coveries which here He makes of Himself to us, 
that, comparatively, the Apostle might well call 
it, a seeing Him as He is, and a knowing Him 
as we are known by Him.—M. ] 

[On Chapter II. Manron, T., Thirty-two Ser- 
mons. Works, 5, 577. 

Ch. 8,1. Hreronymus, S., The spiritual son- 
ship. 2Serm. Works, 349. 

Vv. 1-8. Sroveuton, Joun. The dignitie of 
God’s children: or an exposition of 1 Jno. iii, 1- 
3, plentifully shewing the comfortable, happie 
and most blessed state of all God’s children, and 
also, on the contrarie, the base, fearfull, and 
most woful condition of all other that are not the 
children of God. 4to. London. 1610. 

V. 2. Tituorson, App. Of the happiness of 
good men in a future state. 2 Sermons. Serm. 
10, 56. 

Saurin, J. Heaven. Sermons 8, 321. 
VENN, Joun. The effect of seeing God as He 

Serm. 1, 210. 

Dwicut, T. Adoption. Theol. 3, 167 
Hamitton, R. W. The heavenly state. 
gregat, Lecture, 235. 

V. 3. Sourn, R. The hope of future glory, 

an excitement to purity of life. Sermons 6, 441 


is. 


Con- 


(Epiph. 6). Hope of resembling Christ.  Pit- 
man, 2d course, L. 206. 
Atrorp, H. The pure in heart. Hulsean 


Lecture, 1842. 41. M.] 


CONN Oe 


9 
10 


38. The way of God’s children passes through God’s Law. 


CuHaprer III. 4-10a. 


Whosoever committeth sin transgregseth also the law!: for sin? is the transgression of 
the law’. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our‘ sins ; and in him is no 
sin’. Whosoever* abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever’ sinneth hath not seen him, 
neither known him. Little children’, let no man deceive you’: he that doeth righteous- 
ness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth” sin is of the devil; for 
the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose" the Son of God was mani- 
fested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. , Whosoever! is born of God 
doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he 
is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the 
devil. 


Verse 4 [1 German: “ Every one that doeth (the) sin, doeth also (the) lawlessness.”—M.} 

2 ἡ ἁμαρτία A.B.C.G.K.al. Sin. The Article is very strongly supported and syntactically required. 

[8 German: “ And (the) sin is the lawlessness.”’—M. ] 
Verse 5 4 ἡμῶν, omitted in A. B. Vulg. al., is found in C. G. K. Sin. 

Bede, Lachm. Tischend. Buttmann.—M.] 

5 German: “That He (that One) was manifested to take away our sins and sin is not in Him.” 
Verse 6 [6 German: “ Every one that.”—M.] 

i? Same as 6.—M.] 
Verse 7 8 πβαιδία A.C. al. [Undecided which is the true reading.—M.] 

ἢ German: “ Let no one seduce you.”—M. ] 
Verse 8 [10 German: “He that doeth sin.”’—M.]| 

[1 German: “For this” (eis τοῦ το). No warrant for the additional “ purpose ” in E. V.—M.] 
Verse 9 [12 Same as note 6. German: “ Every one that is born (out) of God, doeth not sin.”—M.] 

[8 German: “ Because.”—M.] 


[Also the reading of Syr. Theophyl. Oecum. 


τεκνία B. Sin. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Connection. The Apostle having traced the 
glory of the sonship up to the power (which it 
derives from hope in God) of working out self- 
purification, annexes v 4 with a more general 
antithesis which, as usual, contains a progression 
of the argument. The positive: ‘‘Every one 
that hath this hope purifieth himself;” is con- 
trasted with the negative: -‘Every one that doeth 
sin, doeth lawlessness.” He does not negatively 
resume the notion of the subject (‘‘ every one 
that hath this hope’’), but that of the predicate 
(‘‘purifieth himself”). However, by this annex- 
ation of the notion of the predicate he denies also, 
by implication, that such an one is the child and 
heir of God, and adds a new point, viz. such an 
one not only injures himself and his portion but 
he violates also the law and ordinance of God, 
at the same time, referring back to the leading 
thought in ch. ii. 29, since all doing of sin is re- 
pugnant to the righteousness of God revealed in 
the law (v. 4) and in Christ (vv. 5-7), and deli- 
neates rather the children of the devil (vv. 8-10), 
than the children of God, who, abiding in Christ, 
do righteousness and not sin (vv. 6, 9, 10). 

The nature of sin. v, 4. 

Ver. 4. Every one that committeth sin, 
committethalsolawlessness.—‘‘The Apostle 
is anxious to show that the truth of the thought is 
unexceptionable.”” (Huther.)—The first point to 
be determined here is the notion ἁμαρτία. Sui- 
das derives ἁμαρτία from μάρπτωϊο grasp, to seize, 
consequently—missing the mark (Rom. xxi. 8, 
802, 311, 23, 62); then moral omission. Oecu- 
menius: ἀποτυχεῖν σκοποῦ, ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἀπόπτωσις, 
on the other hand ἀνομία-εεὴ περὶ τὸν ϑετὸν νόμον 
πλημμέλεια (πλὴν----μέλος contrary to the melody, 
a false note, an error). ‘Awapria, of course, is as 
much an opposition to the Divine righteousness 
(ἀδικία), as a departure from the Divine law, a 
violation of the same (ἀνομία), and this ἡ ἀνομία 
is here not only a not having the law (as ἄνομος 
1 Cor. ix. 21 denotes one who has not a law), but 
signifies the refractoriness opposed to the law. 
Neither ἁμαρτία nor ἀνομία are qualified by any- 
thing which would narrow this their meaning, 
nor may such a qualification be added from the 
context. Although the Article distinctly takes 
sin in the sense of an offence [old English: miss- 
ing. M.] towards God, and ἀνομία as an opposi- 
tion to the law of God, and removes all indefinite 
generality, yet no qualification within this ethico- 
religious sphere is admissible. But we must not 
attach too much importance tq this, since the 
Article is wanting in v. 9: ἁμαρτίαν ov ποιεῖν and 
ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν and ἁμαρτάνειν (vv. 4, 6, 8, 9) 
are used promiscue, so that we must not attach 
too much importance to ποιεῖν, To this must be 
added that καὶ before τὴν ἀνομίαν conyeys the idea 
that the doing of the ἁμαρτία is as such also as 
the doing of the ἀνομία." (Diisterdieck.) ‘ Quis- 
quis committit peccatum, idem committit iniquitatem.” 
(Erasmus.) Kai must neither be taken in a cau- 
sal sense, nor changed into ‘‘ yea” (Briickner) ; 
but we have to hold with Ebrard that the fuller 
idea, ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, in the beginning helps 
to qualify the other terms, ποιεῖν ἁμαρτίαν, and 
ἁμαρτάνειν, and that the antithesis ἁγνίζειν ἑαυτὸν 


is also coéfficient, and that the reference, so far 
from being to sins of haste or infirmity, is rather 
to sin, though only a single act, yet a voluntary 
act. Hence the following explanations cannot 
be received: that ἁμαρτία denotes peccatum mor- 
tale (Estius and the Roman Catholics), or ‘grave, 
unrepented sins’ (Luther, al.), or that ποιεῖν 
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν is—=peccare contumaciter (Aretius), 
contra conscientiam et impeenitenter (Rosenmiiller), 
or peccato operam dare (Beza), peccare scientem et 
volentem (Spener), or the actual moral bias of life 
(Briickner). Itis equally inadmissible to assume 
an intensification of the notion ἁμαρτία into ἀνομία 
(Baumgarten-Crusius, Bengel), or that ἀνομία in- 
cludes crimes and vices proper, as if ἁμαρτία were 
the principle and source of the ἀνομία (de Wette). 
Paraphrases of ποιεῖν ἀνομίαν, such as Deum offen- 
dere (Grotius) and religioni adversari (Carpzov), 
do incorrectly weaken the idea. The two ideas, 
although distinguished from each other, are not 
convertible. We have here the general propo- 
Sition: ‘*whoever doeth sin, of whatever kind it 
be, doeth also lawlessness, violates the Divine 
rule and order,” which is not directed against 
Antinomians, but against all those who are loose 
on the subject of sin; the idea of ἀνομία imparts 
a peculiar severity to that of sin. , 
And sin is lawlessness.—We must of course 
take ἁμαρτία here in the same sense, as in the 
clause immediately preceding, and in the same 
generality. Hence the first ἁμαρτία is not sinful 
doings, and the second an offence against God 
(Kostlin). The Article also forbids our taking 
ἁμαρτία as the predicate of the subject ἀνομία, as 
in Jno. i. 1. Ὁ ede ἦν ὃ λόγος (Késtlin). ᾿Ανομία 
also is as general here as in the preceding clause. 
Νόμος denotes not only the Mosaic law of the 
O. T. but also the law of the N. T. in Christ, and 
by Him explained in the word and exhibited in 
the life (ii. 16; ii. 7; iv. 21; v. 8. cf Matth. v. 
17-19), as the law written in man’s heart for his 
special direction; it embraces the whole complex 
of the divine ἐντολαί. Hence this proposition 
contains not so much a definition (Sander), as the 
nature of sin viewed from that side on which 
its absolute opposition to every Divine fellowship 
shows itself in the most decided form (Briickner); 
‘the Apostle could not have more sharply drawn 
the contrast of the nature of a believer who is a 
τέκνον Veov and will be ὅμοιος ϑεῷ than by declaring 
ἁμαρτία to be ἀνομία." (Huther); or he that 
leads an ungodly life, abrogates the Divine rule 
of life to which he is subject as a Christian 
(Hofmann). Hence Hilgenfeld’s exposition dis- 
figures the thought: ‘‘not every one who deviates 
from the ceremonial laws, but the sinner only 
falls under the category of ἀνομία." Calvin also 
goes far beyond the contents of the verse in 
affirming the sum and substance of the thought to 
be that the life of those who yield themselves to 
sin is hateful and unendurable to God.—The Apostle 
annexes the sentence with καὶ and not with ὅτι, 
because he thereby gives the thought a more in- 
dependent form. We cannot agree with Bengel 
in explaining καὶ by imo, as if before there had 
been only conjuncta notio peccati et iniguitatis, but 
now eadem; the identity is alreadygexpressed in 
the first sentence.—[The following definitions 
will shed additional light on this passage. Am- 
brose: ‘* Quid est peccatum nisi prevaricatio legis 


CHAP. III. 4-10. 


101 


divine, et calestium inobedientia preceptorum.’’— 
Augustine: ‘ Peccatum est factum vel dictum vel 
concupitum aliquid contra xternem legem.’’—** Quid 
verum est, nist et Dominum dare precepta, et animas 
liberx esse voluntatis, et malum naturam non esse, 
sed esse aversionem a Dei preceptis ? ’’—‘* Neque ne- 
gandum est hoc Deum jubere, ita nos in facienda jus- 
titia esse debere perfectos, ut nullum habeamus om- 
nino peccatum; nam neque peccatum erit, si quid 
erit, si non divinitus Jubeatur, ut non sit.””—M. | 

Aid against sin. vv. 5. 6. 

Ver. 5. And ye know that He was 
manifested in order that He might take 
away our sin.—Appealing to their own con- 
sciousness, as at ch. ii. 12-14, 20, 27, the Apostle 
now refers to the Lord and affirms of Him two 
things: First: the purpose of His manifestation 
is the redemption from sin. ’Exeivoc denotes 
Christ, as in v. 3. It is wholly untenable to 
understand here the Gospel (Socinus, Episcopius, 
Grotius), concerning which it surely cannot be 
said that it τὰς ἁμαρτίας αἴρει, or that this is its 
end and aim.—’E¢avepo0y the context requires 
us to apply to Christ’s manifestation in the 
flesh. Cf. 1,2. It points to Christ’s previously 
hidden existence in heaven (Huther). The pur- 
pose of this manifestation is, iva τὰς ἁμαρτίας 
ἡμῶν apy. The reading ἡμῶν is well authenti- 
cated and intensifies the appeal to personal ex- 
perience, without restricting the forgiveness of 
sins to those only who ‘suffer the beneficial 
purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God to 
be carried out on them in faith” (Diisterdieck), 
and to set back the universality of the Divine 
purpose of salvation (ch. ii. 2.); we would rather 
say that paracletic element, which after all is 
the main point here (v. 3), comes out more 
strongly; the οἴδατε, at least, does not contain 
sufficient ground for finding here a specific indi- 
cation of the doctrinal. Nor is there any ne- 
cessity for extending ἡμῶν to all men (Spener). 
“The Plural, τὰς ἁμαρτίας, affords a far more 
lucid and forcible view than if we had here, as 
in vy. 4, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν; Jon does not take sin in 
its general character, but he adverts to all the 
forms of it.” (Diisterdieck). It is wrong to ex- 
plain it by peccati reatum, dominium, penam (J. 
Lange and others); but it signifies: the sins 
themselves. The αἴρειν connected here as at 
Jno. i. 29, with ἁμαρτία signifies in John’s writ- 
ings (Jno. xi. 48; xv. 2; xvii. 15; xix. 81, 38) 
auferre, to carry away, to take away. The ἀμνός, 
Jno. i. 29, the idea of the sacrificial lamb, im- 
plies what is expressed at 1 Pet. ii. 24, with re- 
ference to Is. 1111. 4 sqq., by the verb ἀνάφερειν: 
to take upon oneself by way of atonement, sub- 
stitution, death and reconciliation, while αἴρειν 
indicated a taking away by sanctification; Jno. 
i, 29 we have a blending of both meanings, while 
Peter adyerts to one, the first, and John to the 
other, the second work of Christ, the former to 
His atonement, the latter to His work of re- 
demption. John, who discusses the former at 
ch. ii. 2, dwells here upon the latter, and hence 
denies neither; nor does he separate the one 
from the other, as if the first were without this 
consequence, and the latter without that cause 
(ch. i. 7; iv. 9,11; v. 6). But the context with 
its ethical import, that sin must be avoided and 
shunned, suggests the reference to the fact that 


Y 

Christ came for the purpose of removing sin, of 
taking it away from us; what Christian would 
then oppose or frustrate the design of Christ! 
Hence Oecumenius correctly observes that Christ 
came ἐπ᾽ ἀναιρέσει τῆς ἁμαρτίας (so also Luther, 
Calvin, Neander, Ebrard, Diisterdieck, Huther, 
and al.)—Bede’s remark, ‘‘ Yollit peccata et di- 
mittendo, que facta sunt, et adjuvando, ne fiant, et 
perducendo ad vitam, ubi fierti omnino non possunt,”’ 
is perfectly true, but considerably transcends 
the measure of what is contained in this passage. 
The same applies to those who combine here said 
two references, e. g. Spener, Bengel (explains 
indeed ‘ ¢olleret,”’ but refers to his exposition of 
Jno. i. 29: “‘primum a mundo in se recepit, deinde 
α se ipso devolvit peccati sarcinam’’), Liicke (in his 
Ist ed.), Sander, Besser.—Liicke (in the later 
edition), de Wette and others take aipecv—carry; 
false! 

Secondly: He is sinless. 

And sin is not in Him.—Kqai codrdinates 
this clause with the former. Oecumenius errs in 
his καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ διότι as well as in the paraphrase: 
kav’ ὅτι ἀμέτοχος ἦν ἁμαρτίας. So also Augus- 
tine: ‘Jn quo non est peccatum, ipse venit auferre 
peccatum ; nam si esset et in illo peccatum, auferen- 
dum esset illi, non ipse auferret,’’ and a Lapide: 
‘‘[deo Christus potens fuit tollerepeccatum, quia care- 
bat omni peccato, imo potestate peccandi.”” So also 
Sander, Neander and al. ’Eor: also must be re- 
tained and is not to be taken in the sense of ἦν 
Oecumenius, Grotius: ‘‘peccatuwm in eo non erat, 
nempe, cum vitam mortalem ageret,” and al.); the 
reference here, as in v. 3, is “to the nature of 
Christ in its eternal consistence” [Huther]. 
Hence we may not say with Winer (p. 283) that 
‘‘the sinlessness of Christ is considered as still 
present in faith.” Ἔν αὐτῷ, the reference of 
which has always to be determined by the con- 
text, denotes Christ understood in ἐκεῖνος, it de- 
notes Christ Himself as to His Person and not 
(as Caloy supposes) totwm corpus, the Church, or 
as if we ought to explain ἐν αὐτῷ by ἐν κοινωνίᾳ 
μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Thus the clause ‘‘and sin is not in 
Him” coordinated with that preceding it, is the 
foundation of the sequel, since the Sinless, Pure 
and Righteous One is held up not as an example 
or pattern, but as the vital power and element 
of life in which the Christian must be and abide. 

The immediate consequence. 

Ver, 6. Hvery one that abideth in Him 
sinneth not.—By all means retain the full 
force of μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ to be and abide in Him, to 
derive nourishment from Him and His life (ch. 
i. 3. 6; 11. 5. 6; 23 sq.; 27 sq.), and do not ex- 
change it for eredere in Christum, or weaken it 
into Christi discipulum esse (Semler and al.); nor 
is ἁμαρτάνειν to be taken as = persistere in peccato 
(Luther), sinere regnare peccatum (Hunnius), scele- 
ratum esse (Capellus), peccata mortalia commit- 
tere (Roman Catholics), and to be thus enforced. 
The Apostle sets forth ‘“‘abiding in Christ and 
sinning as irreconcilable opposites; but he does 
not mean to say that believing Christians entirely 
cease to sin or that those, who are yet sinning, 
are not yet in Christ (ch. i. 8-10; ii. 1, 2; ili. 3)” 
(Huther). ‘John is here dealing with realities 
and about to give us the signs whereby we may 
know whether we love the Lord or not, whether 
we are the children of God or of the wicked 


102 


one” (Sander). Hence it is rather hazardous 
to refer here with de Wette and Diisterdieck to 
the Apostle’s ideal mode of representation, and a 
misapprehension of the fact that the Christian, 
though he sins, is yet free from sin, has actually 
parted company with it, and it is his properly 
Christian and inmost being in decided opposition 
to it, so that not sin, but his opposition to it (as 
something alien to his being), determines the 
conduct of his life, exactly as St. Paul puts it 
(Rom. vii. 17): ““υνὲ dé οὐκέτε ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι 
αὐτὸ, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία." Augustine: 
“« Μϊδὶ infirmitate labitur, peccato tamen non consen- 
til, quia potius gemendo luctatur.’’—** In quantum in 
ipso manet, in tantum non peccat.” Besser excel- 
lently says: “ΑΔ Christian does not sin, but swf- 
Jers it.” 

Every one that sinneth hath not seen 
Him, neither known Him.—As usual John 
turns the thought and develops it by an anti- 
thesis. The verb ἁμαρτάνειν has the same sense 
as in the preceding clause; actual sinning in 
word, or work or in the thought of the heart. Of 
such an one he says quite generally οὐχ ἑώρακεν 
αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτὸν. First of all we have to 
take οὐδὲ disjunctively (Winer, p. 509 sqq.); and 
although this does not decide the question which 
of the two verbs ὁρᾷν and γινώσκειν is the stronger 
and more important, yet it does indicate that 
they are different from each other. The pro- 
noun αὐτὸν requires us to think in both verbs of 
the Person of Christ. Hence the sentence: 
ἁμαρτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν is not the object of ὁρᾷν, 
nor is the sentence: ἐφανερώϑη ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας 
ἄρῃ the object of γινώσκειν, in order to indicate the 
purpose of the whole redemptive work of Christ 
(Rickli, Neander). ‘Opav, to see, physically (ch. 
i, 1, 3: iy. 20; Jno. 1.18; vi. 86; 46; viii. 57; 
ix. 87; xv. 24), spiritually (8 Jno. 11; Jno. iii. 
11, 32; vi. 46; viii. 38; xiv. 7,9), and that di- 
rectly and immediately if used of Christ in hea- 
ven, or indirectly and mediately if applied to be- 
lievers in consequence of their illumination,— 
denotes consequently in this passage ‘‘seeing 
Christ,” ‘‘ when we become absolutely conscious 
of the glory of Christ so that our spiritual eye 
beholds Him as He is in the totality of His Es- 
sence” (Huther); γινώσκειν means to know as 
the result of searching contemplation of His 
word, His life, the history of His kingdom, or of 
one’s own experience in the life around us, or 
within ourselves, and indicates here ‘the right 
understanding of Him,” brought about by said 
instrumentality, “50 that we have become fully 
conscious both of His Nature and of His relation 
tous” (Huther). This intimates already that 
in the case of the former, viz. spiritual intuition 
and contemplation, the efficient agency belongs 
more to the object which represents itself before 
the eye of the spirit, and that in the case of the 
latter, viz. knowledge acquired by reflection in the 
way of reasoning and inquiry, the efficient agency 
belongs more to the subject, which makes it the 
object of contemplation (Sander, Huther). Hence 
it follows that ἑώρακεν is not something less, and 
ovdé—** much less” (Sander, Liicke Ist ed. al.), 
nor something more than ἔγνωκεν and oidé—'* and 
not even” (Socinus, Neander and al.); there is 
no reference whatever to a difference in degree, 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


something in common, we cannot, because of 
this latter circumstance, overlook or under- 
rate the former [the difference] and say with 
Diisterdieck that the two notions are essentially 
equal and that ἔγνωκεν is simply added in order 
to indicate the spiritual import of ἑώρακεν. Of 
course it is impossible to interpret (with Liicke) 
ὁρᾷν of outward knowledge in spite of which one 
may sin, and γινώσκειν of real, spiritual know- 
ledge. This connection is analogous to that of 
πιστεύειν and γινώσκειν (ch. iv. 16; Jno. vi. 69), 
so that ὁρᾷν and πιστεύειν might be combined yet 
so as to keep up the difference of πιστεύειν-- -ὁρᾷν 
from γινώσκειν. The force of these notions is 
very shallow in the explanation of Grotius: 
“« Neque de Christo sic cogitat, ut oportet, neque facto 
ostendit, se scire, quanti sit habenda Christi volun- 
tas.” —The Perfects, ἑώρακεν, ἔγνωκεν are to be 
preserved; they point to the past when the be- 
ginning of seeing and knowing took place, yet so 
that that which had its beginning in the past still 
acts and continues in the present, which is espe- 
cially noticed by Erasmus (cognitum habet), Liicke, 
Briickner, Diisterdieck and Hutber. It is wholly 
unwarranted to take the Perfect in the sense of 
the Present (Didymus: ‘non videt eum;” Au- 
gustine: ‘‘non credit;” Bede, Grotius, Estius, 
who construes the Perfect as a Hebraism for the 
Present). John’s idea therefore is this: Every 
one that sinneth, and that while he is sinning, is 
one in whom seeing and knowing Christ is a fact 
of the past, but without continuing to act and to 
last to the present. Hence Bengel says not 
amiss: ‘‘ In ipso peccati momento talis jit, ac sieum 
nullo viderit modo.” —Instructive is the reference 
to ch. ii. 19 (J. Lange, Sander) and the com- 
parison with Matth. vii. 23: οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς 
(i. e. as mine). The reference is, as the ancients 
rightly observe, to an efficax scientia (Dydimus), 
an affectiva et dilectiva (Estius), although Lyra 
goes as much beyond the mark with his fides 
formata caritate, as Ebrard with his loving know- 
ledge, or 8S. G. Lange with his yiwdoxerv—amare. 
{Ignatius, the disciple of John, says: ‘‘No one 
who professeth faith, sinneth; and ng one who 
hath love, hateth. They, who profess themselves 
Christians, will be manifested by what they do.” 
(Ignatius, ad Eph.; also Jerome in Jovin. ii. 1, 
and contra Pelagianos I. 3).—M.] 

The issue. vv. 7, 8, 9. 

Ver. 7. Little children, let no one seduce 
you.—This impressive address, (unchanged 
whether we read παιδία or τεκνία) introduces an 
adm onitionin respect of the clearly-perceived and 
ruin-fraught danger, unless they avail them- 
selves of the aid provided in their glorious Lord 
and Saviour. The Apostle speaks of ἑαυτοὺς πλα- 
vouev, ch. i, 8. Here, however, he adverts not to 
self-deception, but refers ‘‘in matters affecting 
the energizing and outwardly operative exhi- 
bition of the Divine life” (Diisterdieck), to decep- 
tion and seductions coming from without, not 
springing from relations and events, but from 
men (μηδεὶς), who are more dangerous by far 
than relations or events. But there is no reason 
why we should think here of distinct forms of 
error, say e. g. those of the antinomian Gnostics 
(Diisterdieck, Huther). [On the other hand 
Ebrard and Wordsworth see here an unmistak- 


Although despite all their difference the two have ! able reference to the Gnostics. The latter ob- 


CHAP. III. 4-10. 


serves: ‘‘that these verses cannot be understood 
without reference to their tenets and practices,” 
and then mentions the followers of Simon Magus, 
who said that they could please God without 
righteousness, and that whatever might be the 
case with others, who had not their spiritual 
gnosis, they themselves had no need to work right- 
eousness, but that they would be saved by grace, 
whatever their works might be. ‘ Liberos agere 
que velint; secundum enim ipsius (Simonis) 
gratiam salyari homines, sed non secundum operas 
justas.” Ireneeus I. 20 ed. Grabe. Hippolytus, 
Philosoph. p. 175; Theodoret, Haer fad. i. 1, who 
testifies that on the presumption of the indefecti- 
bility of special grace within themselves, they 
fell into all kinds of lasciviousness.’’—M. ].—This 
admonition is in point of form like 1 Tim. iy. 12; 
Tit. 11. 15, in point of sense like μὴ πλανᾶσθε, 
1 Cor. vi. 9; 15-83; Luke xxi. 8. But that form 
at the same time exhibits a more lively sense of 
danger. 

He that doeth righteousness is right- 
eous, even as He is righteous.—On δικαιο- 
σύνην ποιεῖν and δίκαιος, see notes on ch. ii. 29. 
The Apostle does not say here πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν, but 
only ὁ ποιῶν ; the idea of unexceptional univer- 
sality makes room for the importance of the fact. 
Instead of the predicate ἑώρακε αὐτὸν καὶ ἔγνωκεν 
αὐτὸν (v. 6), or μένει ἐν αὐτῷ (v. 5), or ἐξ αὐτοῦ ye- 
γέννηται (ch. 11, 29), there follows, as usual with 
the addition of a new particular, the consequence 
thereof, viz.: δίκαιός ἐστιν, either with reference 
to ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεϑα (v. 2) or in order to denote 
the corresponding attitude towards the law. It 
is evident that the predicate is not acquired after 
that which is affirmed in the subject-sentence 
has taken place; the predicate is immanent in 
the subject, the nature of the righteous appears 
from his doing righteousness, it is already in its 
existence and does not only become so, as held by 
the Roman Catholics (Lyra, Emser, Estius, al.), 
and the Socinians, Arminians and Rationalists 
(Socinus, Grotius, al.) against the Protestants 
(Luther, Calvin). ‘He that doeth not righteous- 
ness, proves thereby that he ἐξ not righteous” 
(Huther). [Compare the words of Ignatius in 
the last note on vy. 6. M.] The additional clause 
refers to the righteousness of Christ, as mani- 
festing the righteousness of God and standing 
out as a bright pattern. The Apostle once more 
uses ἐκεῖνος, although the previous αὐτὸς desig- 
nated Christ, so that he might have put αὐτὸς 
without giving rise to misunderstanding, and 
thus have absolutely removed any and every 
want of clearness, that αὐτὸς in ch. ii. 29 had 
reference to Christ. By Him the Christian should 
ever measure and adjust himself. Baumgarten- 
Crusius’s explanation is altogether irrelevant; 
viz.: ‘he that is good, follows the example of 
Christ,” or “he only that lath been righteous 
through Christ, doeth righteousness.” [Huther 
justly observes, that as there is no reference 
whatever to justification in this passage, a La- 
pide’s assertion, that the thought of this verse 
contradicts the Protestant Dogma of justification 
by faith, is altogether futile. The explanation 
of Lorinus also, that “ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην is 
qui habet in se justitiam, 2. 6. opus gratiz, vide- 
licet virtutem infusam,” is manifestly false.—M. ]. 

Ver. 8. He that committeth sin, is of 


103 


Ts 


the devil.—This is the progressive antithesis. 
On ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν compare note on y. 4. 
It is ‘the more significant and precise” expres- 
sion for ἁμαρτάνειν y. 6 (Diisterdieck). Of such 
an one John does not say: ἄδικός ἐστι but ἐκ τοῦ 
διαβόλου ἐστίν and thus states the final cause of 
the thought. The phrase ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι 
must be interpreted after the analogy of ἐκ τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ εἶναι (ef. on ch. ii. 16), and this is the more 
incumbent upon us because verse 10 specifies 
τὰ τέκνα τοῦ ϑεοῦ and τά τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, and 
the paternal name is actually given to Satan at 
Jno. viii. 44. Still there is wanting an analogy 
to γεγεννῆσϑαι ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ (ef. on ch, ii. 29) both 
for the adherents of the devil and the κόσμος, al- 
though we have ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἶναι at ch. ii. 16 
and οἱ υἱοὶ Tov αἰῶνος τούτου at Luke xvi. 8. Hence, 
although ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι contains no reference 
to a regeneration from beneath,—as if the devil 
had created the sinner, into whom he has only 
infused evil (Russmeyer), so that the Apostle 
adverts simply to corruptio and not to generatio 
(Bengel), and that consequently the phrase must 
be construed ethically and not physically (so that 
we cannot say τέκνον τοῦ διαβόλου in the same 
sense and with the same right as we say τέκνον 
ϑέου, see note on γ. 10a),—yet are we obliged to 
think of: an origin from the devil and of a 
sameness in kind and an intimate union with the 
devil as well as of an inheritance of woe in hell 
to be meted out to the devil and his adherents, 
and to reject the volatilization of the idea by 
perversion into a mere belonging to (de Wette), 
following (Semler), resembling and _ spiritual 
affinity with the devil (Grotius, Socinus, al.). 
Nor does the analogy warrant the assertion that 
it is not at all necessary to assume John to be- 
lieve the existence of the devil, that this is only 
a mode of representation current among heretical 
Jewish Christians (Semler), or a Jewish formula 
of teaching without all dogmatical importance, 
or used only for the purpose of intensifying the 
idea of sin as hostility to God (Baumgarten- 
Crusius). See no. 4 below in ‘Doctrinal and 
Ethical.” 

Because the devil sinneth from the be- 
ginning.—The connection by ὅτε specifies the 
reason of the sentence, ‘‘ He that doeth sin is of 
thedevil;” hence the reference is to man’s sinning 
and his relation to the devil. For this reason ἀπ᾽ 
ἀρχῆς emphatically put first, is to be interpreted 
of the beginning of man’s sinning, like Jno. viii. 
44, and the Apostle declares that from that be- 
ginning the devil has been showing himself as the 
sinner [the sinning owe], he is not only a sinner 
in himself, but he did also bring about the first 
sin of man as a seducer, and not the first sin 
only, but he does bring about every sin even until 
now (the Present ἁμαρτάνει); sinning is his work 
from the beginning. LBengel: ‘* Omnium pecca- 
torum causa est; nunguam satiatur.”” Hence there 
is no reference here to the beginning of the devil’s 
existence from the creation of the world (Bede; 
for that would contradict Jno. viii. 44, οὐκ 
ἔστηκεν), or to the beginning of the creation of 
the earth and the solar system (Estius), or to 
the beginning of the res humane (Semler), or to 
the beginning of the devil’s fall (Calvin, Calov, 
Bengel: ‘‘ #x quo diabolus est diabolus; minime 
diu tenuisse videtur statum primitivum,”’ Neander, 


104 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Sander and others.). Nor may we interpret 
ἁμαρτάνει like Bengel: ‘ Peccat et ad peccandum 
inducit,”’ but rather compare Rom. vii. 17. The 
influxus, suggestio, inspiratio, directio, codperatio 
of the devil (Calov) lie not in the verb ἁμαρτάνει, 
but in the whole context: because the devil has 
sinned from the beginning and goes on sinning, 
every one that is sinning is of the devil; for the 
real connection of the person sinning with the 
devil or of the devil with the person sinning, is 
here evidently presumed, yet so that the first 
proposition describes the state of the sinner as 
essentially belonging to the sphere of the devil’s 
life and kingdom, while the second proposition, 
connected with the former by 67, marks the 
continuing activity of the devil, so that the latter 
is the cause of the former. 

For this was the Son of God manifested 
that He might destroy the works of the 
devil.—Bengel: ‘‘ Diabolus peccandi finem non 
facit; peccatum solvere filii dei opus est.” With- 
out using a conjunction the Apostle rapidly and 
in terse language specifies with sharpness and 
distinctness of outline the antithesis: διάβολος 
—vidc tov Seov; ἐκεῖνος would have been too weak 
and inadequate here, and contrasts the hidden 
seduction of Satan with the manifestation (ἐφανε- 
pot) of the Son of God for the destruction of 
the works of the devil (Jno. xii. 31; xvi. 11; 
Matth. xii. 29; Luke x. 18). Heis not only δίκαιος 
(vy. 7) but He also destroys sins (λύσῃ). This is 
the end of His coming, asin v. 5: αἴρειν τὰς duap- 
τίας is parallel to λύειν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλουι͵ The 
last expression consequently denotes sins and, 
with reference to διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει, as the works 
of the devil who committeth them. Hence the 
reference is here to the ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου, sins, 
not to the wages of sin—affliction, death, condem- 
nation (Caloy, Spener). For these are rather 
the works of God who is righteous and decrees 
the penalty, and only by way of consequence the 
object of the redemptive work of Christ, but not 
the object of λύειν. This verb signifies the de- 
struction of a building (Jno. ii. 19; 2 Pet. iii. 10- 
12), or of a ship (Acts xxvii. 41) and also the 
loosing of chains (Acts xxii. 30). Bengel: 
(“Opera confortissima que solvere res digna erat 
jilio Dei’’), Spener, Besser and others retain the 
sense of ‘loosening, untying,’ as if sins were the 
cords or bands of Satan; but this is manifestly a 
departure from the plain sense of the words and 
although useful for practical purposes, a rather 
artificial interpretation. Since nothing is said 
here of the three offices of Christ concurring in 
this work, or how that concurrence is to take 
place, the text neither authorizes us to assume 
that the oficiwm sacerdotale and the officium regium 
without the oficium propheticum will be engaged 
in the destruction of the works of the devil and 
to think only of the passion of our Lord, nor to 
infer anything for or against that sentence from 
‘¢ Htiamsi Adam non peccasset, Christus incarnatus 
6580... Besides, John adverts only, as he had 
written (ἐφανερώθη----λύσῃ,.)} ‘to what Christ did 
purpose and achieve by His manifestation in the 
flesh” (Diisterdieck), without intending to de- 
scribe or even to deny the continuous victory of 
Christ; he refers to that ch. i. 7; ii. 1, 2, 18, 14; 
iv. 4, 14; v. 5, but not primarily here. [Ig- 
natius, the disciple of John, uses λύειν in the 


sense of the text, viz., the destruction of evil, ad 
Eph. i. 8,19, λύεται ὄλεθρος, ἐλύετο πᾶσα μάχγεια. 

Ver. 9. Every one that is born of God, 
doth not commit sin, because his seed 
abideth in him.—This is the antithesis of y. 
8a, and ὅτε here like there denotes the reason 
why; the structure of the sentences too is alike, 
with the sole difference that by the usual inver- 
sion the subjects and predicates have changed 
places. Ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ opp.: ἐκ δια- 
βόλου ἐστιν,---ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ opp.: ὁ ποιῶν τὴν 
ἁμαρτίαν, ---ὗτι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει opp.: 
ὅτι σπέρμα αὑτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει. Thus John con- 
trasts sinning in its extreme and inmost nature 
with the children of God in the possession of 
their highest and most glorious gift and an atti- 
tude conformable thereto, Πᾶς denotes the gen- 
eral character of the sense. We know from ch. 
ii. 29; iii. 6, that being born of God, doing right- 
eousness or not sinning belong together and that 
the former is incompatible with the commission 
of sin. Cf. ch. i. 5. Hence ἁμαρτίαν stands em- 
phatically in ante-position; the Apostle regards 
sin as devilish, and righteousness as divine; and 
hence righteousness and sin are as absolutely and 
diametrically opposed to each other as are God 
and the devil. The clause annexed by ὅτε speci- 
fies the reason why one born of God does not 
commit sin, and being parallel to the similar 
clause in y. 8, sheds a light on the latter in confir- 
mation of the interpretation given here. The 
reference of σπέρμα αὐτοῦ to ϑεοῦ is obvious. The 
seed of God necessarily denotes something that 
proceeds from God, is instinct with vital power 
and full of life, develops itself, blossoms and 
bears fruit, and begets the Divine. We cannot 
see here a reference to the word of God (with 
Clement of Alex., Augustine, Bede, Luther, Calov, 
Spener, Bengel, Besser, Socinus, Grotius and 
others), notwithstanding Matth. xiii. 38 sqq.; Jas. 
IAL SsvalP et. i123 set MeCorl ἂν 15. Gal ἀν. 19; 
because that simile from the vegetable kingdom 
does not answer to the reference to begetting and 
birth, and because the Word of God or the Gos- 
pel in other passages is mentioned only as the 
instrument of begetting, as a carrier and con- 
ductor of the Divine σπέρμα, but not the σπέρμα 
itself. [Alford, who takes the view impugned 
here, says: ‘‘ But whether we regard the genera- 
tion of plants, or animal procreation, which latter 
is more in question here, what words can more 
accurately describe the office of the seed, than 
these? And what is the word of God but the 
continually abiding and working seed of the new 
life in the child of God? Nay, it seems to be 
that exactly of which we are in search: not the 
Holy Spirit, the personal agent; not the power 
of the new life, the thing begotten; but just that 
which intervenes between the two, the word, the 
utterance of God,—dropt into the soul of man, 
taking it up by Divine power into itself, and de- 
veloping the new life continually. This is in 
the most precise and satisfactory sense the σπέρμα 
τοῦ Yeov; and in this all Scripture symbolism is 
agreed: cf. 1 Pet. i. 28; Jas. i. 18. In fact, the 
very passage which is the key to this, is Jno. y. 
38, τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν. Nor 
should any exception have been taken by Huther 
and Diisterdieck to the comparison with the para- 


» CHAP. III. 4-10. 


105 


—_————$—S ss 


ble of the sower (‘‘wie viele dltere Ausleger mit|dieck and most expositors); hence ἁμαρτάνειν 


ungeschickter Vergleichung von Matth. xiii. 3 sqq.” 
Diisterdieck), for though the attendant circum- 
stances of generation are different, the analogy 
is the same.”—M.]_ It follows from this that the 
reference is to the Spirit of God, even the Moly 
Spirit, who communicates Himself in and of His 
own. Hence σπέρμα must not be applied to His 
whole Person but as the πνεῦμα radiating from 
Him which is at once He Himself and His gift, a 
gift from Himand of His Nature. This construc- 
tion is rendered imperative by ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ in the 
final and substantiating clause of this verse which 
runs parallel to σπέρμα. Just as one who is born 
of God is not on that account God and has not 
like Christ the fulness of God bodily indwelling, 
80 σπέρμα is not the full Person of the Spirit of 
God, of the Holy Spirit, but something that 
comes forth from His Being, which, while it 
cannot be separated from Him, must be distin- 
guished from Him. Therefore we have to say 
with the Greek expositors that σπέρμα is πνεῦμα 
υἱοϑέσιας, TO πνευματικὸν χάρισμα, the Spiritus 
Sanctus et ejus virtus (Calvin, Beza, Diisterdieck), 
nativitas spiritualis (Estius), vires regenerationis (S. 
Schmidt), Divine life-powers (de Wette, Neander), 
the πνεῦμα begotten of the Holy Spirit (Sander), 
the germ of the new life, of the new man, Christ im- 
planted in us (Ebrard, Liicke, Huther). But it is 
not σπέρμα as analogous to pu =réxvov (Bengel: 


‘semen dei ἡ. 6. qui natus est ex deo’’), or ‘semen 
quasi divinum’’ (Semler), the formative principle of 
the good (Paulus), or religion (Fritzsche),—It is 
important to recollect that while μένει is used of 
σπέρμα, μένει is also said of the believer (v. 6), 
and that he is bidden notwithstanding: yévere— 
(ch. ii. 28). On this account, and because the 
reference is not to a full ear of grain gathered in 
the barn, but to σπέρμα cast into the earth des- 
tined to grow under the influence of all kinds of 
weather, we need not suppose, that therefore it 
must abide and could neither be lost again nor 
perish. Nothing is said on this point, it is 
neither affirmed nor denied, and therefore we are 
not warranted to introduce or assume it here; 
the subject in question is simply and solely that 
in the σπέρμα and its abiding in conformity with 
its nature, the child of God receives the power 
of not committing sin. Although we cannot ex- 
plain ὅτε by ἐφ᾽ ὅσον as if it were—quantum, 
quamdiu, quatenus, it is involyed in the thought 
(The Greek, R. Catholic and Evangelical com- 
mentators). 


And he cannot sin, because he is born 
of God.—Now the Apostle adds the most im- 
portant particular, viz., his inability of sinning 
on the ground of his having been born of God, 
with which St. John began, as he now concludes 
this section. With reference to the seed of God 
abiding in the. child of God, he now asserts the 
absolute contrariety of a child of God and sinning 
in the words: ov δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν. Non potest 
peccare is at all events much stronger and more 
than potest non peccare; it declares not the possi- 
bility of not sinning, but the impossibility of 
sinning. A servant of sin has become a servant 
of righteousness (Rom. vi. 16-23); in virtue of 
the seed of God abiding in him he only wills and 
only can do the Divine, righteousness (Diister- 


must neither be intensified into ‘committing 
mortal sins” (the Romanists), to sin diabolically 
(Besser), to sin deliberately and intentionally (Eb- 
rard), nor be limited to hating the brethren (Augus- 
tine, Bede), nor must οὐ δύναται be weakened 
into xgre, difficulter est (Grotius, ‘‘res aliena est ab 
ejus ingenio;” Paulus, ‘‘his whole spiritual nature 
and HABIT resist it”). Nor must it be changed 
into ov βούλεται (the Greek commentators) or 
non debet. Nor is this declaration of the Apostle 
only a goal and standard far above the reality 
of the Christian life on earth, only of relative 
importance and without reality. Bengel: “ Res 
se habet, ut in abstemio, qui non potest vinum bibere, 
et in varus antipathie generibus.”? On the sub- 
stantiating clause Bengel strikingly observes: 
‘“‘priora verba ex deo majorem hubent in pronunci- 
ando accentum; quod ubi observatur, patet, non idem 
per idem probari, collato initio versus.” Because 
he is born of God, he that is born of God cannot 
sin; the child of God cannot sin, because it is the 
child of God. Very pertinent also is the note of 
Luther: ‘‘ Jn summa nos Christiani nascimur, nec 
fuco quodam aut specie, sed ipsa natura sumus 
Christiani, quare non est possibile ut peccemus.” 
[Wordsworth: ‘He that hath been born of God, 
and liveth as a son of God cannot be a sinner. It 
is inconsistent with the essential condition of his 
spiritual birth, by which he is dead to sin. It is 
contrary to the nature which he has as a child of 
God. This is well expressed by Didymus here, 
who says, ‘‘ St. John does not assert that the man 
who has been born of God will never commit sin; 
but he asserts that he does not work sin.—Non 
scriptum estnon peccabit, sed non peccatum facit, non 
idem est peceare et peccatum facere; a child of two 
days old, by reason of his natural childhood, 
cannot sin, but a child of God cannot bea sinner.” 
This distinction he draws from the difference 
between the Present Infinite and the Aorist Infi- 
nitive; see Winer ὁ 44, p. 346, 348, 349, who quotes 
from Stallbaum, Plat. Euthyd., p. 140: * Aoris- 
tus (Infin.) quia nullam facit significationem perpe- 
tuitatis et continuationis, prouti vel initium vel pro- 
gressus vel finis actionis verho expresse spectatur, ita 
solet usurpari, ut dicatur vel de eo, quod statim et 6 
vestigio fit ideoque etiam certo futurum est, vel de re 
semel tantum eveniente, qu diurnitatis et perpetui- 
tatis cogitationem aut non fert aut certe non requirit, 
vel denique de re brevi et uno veluti temporis ictu 
peracta.” Thus e. g. πιστεῦσαι is to make a pro- 
fession of faith, or an act of faith, at a particular 
time; but πιστεύειν is to believe, to be a believer; 
δουλεῦσαι is to do an act of service, δουλεύειν, to be 
a slave; οὐδεὶς οἰκέτης δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δού-- 
λεύειν, no servant can be a slave to two masters 3 80 
ἁμαρτεῖν is to commit a sin, but ἁμαρτάνειν is much 
more than this, it is to be a sinner.”’ 

Ignatius, ad. Eph. 8 says: ‘ Let no one deceive 
you. They who are carnal cannot do the things 
which are spiritual; nor can they who are spiritual 
do the things which are carnal. Faith cannot do 
the works of unbelief, nor can wnbelief dothe works 
of faith. The works which ye do in the flesh 
are spiritual, because ye work all your works in 
Jesus Christ.” —M.]. 

Conclusion. v. 10a. 

Ver. 10a. In this are manifest the chil- 
dren of God and the children of the de- 


106 


vil.—’Ev τούτῳ refers back to the preceding. Cf. 
on ch. ii, 3. The point under notice is ἐκ τοῦ 
Veov and ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι. This is apparent 
in the doing of righteousness or in the working of 
sin, the sinner entangling himself in sin, as a 
child of the devil, while the believer, as being 
born of God, resists it. Being a child of God or 
a child of the devil is hidden and manifest in 
doing. Hence this clause must not be referred to 
the sequel (Grotius, Spener, Ebrard and others) 
as there is not the least occasion for it; de Wette, 
Sander, and others leave this point undetermined. 
It is not said here to whom τὰ τέκνα τοῦ ϑεοῦ and 
τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου φανερά ἐστιν, but γ. 1 (κόσμος 
οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς) renders it certain that it is not 
manifest to the world but only to the Chris- 
tian. That difference is only manifest in the 
light of the divine κρίσις, the uncritical world 
blends together and confounds good and evil, 
God and the devil (Liicke, Sander). ‘To the 
children of the deyil their own moral nature re- 
mains a mystery until they accept the judgment 
of the Holy Spirit and through the divine seed 
are born of God and become the children of 
God.” Cf. Matth. vii. 16-21; Luke vi. 43-46.— 
The phrase τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου occurs only here 
in the New Testament although we encounter the 
following variations: υἱὸς διαβόλου said of Elymas 
Bar-Jesus, Acts xiii. 10; ὁ vide τῆς ἀπωλείας said of 
Judas, Jno. xvii. 12; and υἱοὶ τῆς ἀπειθείας and 
τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, Eph. ii. 3, instead of which 
τέκνον τοῦ διαβόλου might have been used, if that 
expression had not been studiously avoided in 
order to prevent the misunderstanding that we 
might as well speak of a birth (out) of the devil 
as of a birth (out) of God (see notes on vy. 8) and 
in order not to give nourishment to the dualistic 
notion that their conversion or regeneration is im- 
possible, to intimate, on the contrary, that it is 
more probable to see a child of the devil become 
a child of God than a child of God become a child 
of the devil. Butit cannot be inferred from these 
different expressions that the terms τὰ τέκνα τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ and τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου denote the two ex- 
tremes between which other men are found. This 
antithesis embraces rather the totality of mankind 
just as ἁμαρτάνειν and οὐχ ἁμαρτάνειν comprise the 
whole attitude of men. Socinus is surely right: 
“Kx apostoli verbis satis aperte colligi potest, quod 
inter filios dei et filios diaboli nulli sint homines medii.”’ 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The nature of sin. The word ἁμαρτία while 
indicating aberration from the right way, the 
right goal, the straight direction and order 
does not tell us wherefrom said aberration takes 
place. On this account the word ἀνομία is 
added. It is evident that sin is in direct an- 
tagonism to the νόμος, the divine ordinance. 
Hofmann pertinently compares 2 Thes. ii. 7 
(Schriftbeweis 1., 487). The first thing is that 
sin contradicts the divine ordinance. The ex- 
tent of ἀνομία is also that of ἁμαρτία; whatever 
does not accord with the divine ordinance of life, 
be it little or small or as it please, is ἁμαρτῖα, 
which is always to be regarded primarily as an 
injury done to God who has appointed the νόμος. 
Hence the notion of guilt adheres at all events to 
the notion of sin, although the sinner be not con- 
scious of it at the time or soon after the act; the 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 
I ts Sa a ee eee et 


sense of guilt is sure to come sooner or later, but 
invariably with the knowledge of sin, even as 
David expresses it: ‘“‘Against thee only, have I 
sinned” (Ps. li. 4) and St. Paul ὑπόδικος τῷ ϑεῷ 
(Rom. iii. 19). The injury done to one’s own 
soul which lies at the bottom of ἁγνίζειν ἑαυτὸν, 
and is declared in τηρεῖ αὐτὸν as contrasted (ἀλλὰ) 
with ἁμαρτάνειν is likewise the reason why the 
sinner is outside of fellowship with Christ who 
is life, gives life and takes away sin. 

[Pearson (p. 539) says: “The law of God is 
the rule of the actions of men, and any aberra- 
tion from that rule is sin: the law of God is pure 
and whatsoever is contrary to the law is impure. 
Whatsoever therefore is done by man, or is in 
man, having any contrariety or opposition to the 
law of God, is sin. Every action, every word, 
every thought, against the law, is a sin of omis- 
sion, as it is terminated to an object dissonant 
from, and contrary to, the prohibition of the law, 
as a negative precept. Every omission of a duty 
required of us is a sin, as being contrary to the 
commanding part of the law, or an affirmative 
precept. Every evil habit contracted in the soul 
of man by the actions committed against the law 
of God, is a sin constituting a man truly a sin- 
ner, even then, when he actually sinneth not. 
Any corruption and inclination in the soul, to do 
that which God forbiddeth, and to omit that 
which God commandeth, howsoever such cor- 
ruption and evil inclination came into the soul, 
whether by an act of his own will, or by the act 
of the will of another, isa sin, as being something 
dissonant from, and repugnant to the law of God. 
And this I conceive sufficient to declare the na- 
ture of sin.”’—M. ]. 

2. The nature of righteousness, as the opposite 
of sin, is therefore a conduct consonant with the 
νόμος, a doing regulated by the divine ordinances 
of life, from the work of our hands to the act of 
thinking and the power of the will. 

3. The corruption of sin is manifest in that it 
entangles men in a relation to Satan which at 
once defines his attitude and shows itself in it. 
It comes from Satan and is the act of Satan, so 
that living in sin and the working of sin are evi- 
dences of the sinner’s dependence on the devil, 
his appurtenance and similarity of nature to the 
devil. Although man’s sin is the sin of the se- 
duced, in virtue of such seduction he is yet as "ἡ 
much doomed to the power of the kingdom of the 
Evil One as he is guilty before God; and he that 
ought and might have become a child of God, 
has become a child of the deyil. As surely as 
fellowship with God and righteousness are gained 
in Christ, so surely does sin evidence fellowship 
with the devil. 

4. Satan is a person, opposed to God, the op- 
posite of God and not only of Christ, who came 
to take away sin and to destroy the works of 
the devil. Strauss (Dogmatik 11. 15) justly ob- 
serves: ‘The whole idea of Messiah and His 
kingdom is as impossible without its counterpart 
of a kingdom of demons with a personal head, as 
the north pole of a magnet without the south 
pole. If Christ came to destroy the works of the 
devil, there was no necessity for His coming if 
there was no devil; if there is a devil, but only 
as the personification of the principle of evil— 
well, then we ought also to be satisfied with a 


CHAP. III. 4-10. 


107 


Christ as an impersonal idea.” Besides to deny 
the existence and personality of the devil is to 
give up the personality of God Himself. God 
would be the Absolute and not the absolute Per- 
sonality, if in this Johannean complex of ideas 
we are permitted to understand Satan to be only 
a principle, though it be the cosmical.—But 
there are here no data whatsoever for a dualistic 
conception. Two things are certain; First; the 
devil’s opposition to God cannot be so construed 
as to give the devil the character of the contes- 
tant counter-god from all eternity and to divest 
him of the attributes of the creature; the text 
contains no warranty for either; the purpose of 
Christ’s manifestation and the circumstance that 
this purpose must be supposed to be fully accom- 
plished and accomplishing in all essential points, 
warrant us rather to conclude that said true as- 
sumptions, as a perfectly dualistic opposition of 
the devil and God, are incompatible with the 
fundamental views of the Apostle. Secondly: it 
cannot be inferred from this passage that men 
are naturally and essentially devilish. For John 
plainly declares that not the devil’s nature (to 
which he does not make the faintest allusion), 
but the devil’s work shows itself in the sins of 
men and that Christ came not to destroy the na- 
ture of the devil but to destroy the works of the 
devil. Nor must it be overlooked that, as con- 
trasted with the terms γεγεννημένος ἐν τοῦ ϑεοῦ, 
σπέρμα ϑεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐκ ϑεοῦ εἷναι, ἐκ αὐτῷ μένων, 
τέκνον ϑεοῦ, the Apostle is very sparing in his 
reference to the devil and does not go beyond 
saying ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι and τέκνον Tov δια βόλον, 
opposing the latter term, as it were by constraint, 
to the phrase ‘child of God,” so that Augustine 
justly refers to an imitari diabolum, observing: 
““Omnes peccatores ex diabolo nati sunt, in quantum 
peccatores, Adam a deo factus est, sed quando con- 
sensit diabolo, ex diabolo natus est, et tales omnes 
genuit qualis erat.” There is not the faintest in- 
timation for the supposition that man does not 
sin of his own will, not voluntaria but naturaliter, 
and that the sin which he commits is not his 
fault, but solely the devil’s fault; the contrary is 
evident from the exhortation in vy. 7 and the para- 
cletical tendency which lies at the bottom of the 
whole. Neither dualism nor determinism can be 
deduced from this passage. But concerning 
subjection and personal transactions reference is 
made to cosmical powers in God the Father with 
the Son and in the devil, as the ultimate and 
chief factors of all personal development, 

5. The work of Satan is sin, and sin from the 
beginning, 7. 6. from the beginning of sin on the 
part of mankind, which is the only subject under 
notice here. Hence he is most truly the sinner, the 
original sinner. As he was actively engaged in 
the first sin, so he still is actively engaged in 
every sin. But beyond this fact nothing is said 
as to the nature οἵ his activity, as to its concur- 
rence with that of man which is not excluded, 
and as to the manner how sin comes to pass. 
But it is intimated that contrary to Christ who 
was manifested and did appear in order to destroy 
the works of the devil, the devil was not mani- 
fested but remained and continued to walk in 
concealment, and that the children of God and the 
children of the devil cannot be identified at once, 
even as the world (which knows neither God nor 


the children of God (vy. 1), nor itself) does not 
discover the devil’s work in its own sin; for the 
reference is to πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας (Eph. vi. 
12). Itis just the man, who, as St. James says 
(ch. i. 14 sq.), is incited and enticed by his own 
lust (ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιϑυμίας ἐξελκόμενος 
καὶ δελεαζόμενος) and commits sin without an in- 
ward struggle, without offering any resistance, 
in a calm course of development (ἡ ἐπεϑυμία 
συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει τὴν ἁμαρτίαν), has the devil 
as the father of sin and is himself a child of the 
devil. In sins it becomes manifest that the 
anti-divine on earth is intimately and vitally 
connected with the kingdom and influence of 
the devil and that ultimately the whole matter 
resolves itself into a world-combat between God 
and the devil, and a world-victory of God in 
Christ over the devil (compare Harless, Lthies 
ἢ 28. ***: Nitzsch, System. Ὁ. 244. sqq.) 

6. Redemption from sin is the work of the Sinless 
One, the purpose of the manifestation of the Sinless 
One, whose aim it is not to bring a new doctrine 
but to produce a new life. According to this the 
most important thing is, of course, not the exposi- 
tion of the law marked by the utmost profoundness 
of apprehension and lucidity of statement, but the 
exhibition of the law to its full extent in a pure 
life, which not only evinces its strength in suffer- 
ing and the assumption of human sin, but also 
satisfies and reconciles the Father, so that for 
the Son’s sake He now once more turns to man- 
kind as hallowed and mankind overcome and 
attracted by the Sinless One, parts company with 
sin and turns away from it. It is inconceivable 
to have known and understood the Sinless One 
and yet to continue in sin all the same; to abide 
in Christ and to abide in sin are incompatible 
opposites; the one excludes the other. John, to 
be sure, has respect only to the principle or the 
result, as the issue is a life that terminates not 
in’a moment but has its historical course and in- 
ternal development. This is predicated of the 
life in Christ (vy. 2, 3,) and by analogy we are 
constrained to assume it of the life in sin. 

7. Being determines the doing, the doing does not 
determine the being, but we know the being from 
the doing. The being is the cause, the doing the 
effect. Hence he that does not commit sin but 
worketh righteousness (vv. 6, 7, 8, 9) must be 
born of God (ch. 11. 29; iii. 9, 10) and have seen 
and known Christ (ch. iii. 6), but he that is of the 
devil, commits sin and worketh no righteousness 
(v. 8). So Luther (Hrlangen ed. 27,191): ‘Good, 
pious works nevermore make a good, pious man, 
but a good pious man will do good, pious works. 
Evil works nevermore make an evil man, but an 
evil man will do eyil works. Consequently the 
person must everyways be good and pious prior to 
all good works, and good works must follow and 
proceed from the good, pious person (Matth. 
vii. 18). Hencea man must have become right- 
eous by justification, before he can act righteously 
in sanctification, This is the truth and the 
right of the Lutheran and Reformed confessions 
in opposition to Rome; but on the subject of be- 
coming righteous John confines himself to saying 
that it takes place (out) of God in Christ by re- 
generation and propitiation; hence it simply 
indicates the objective ground and not the sub- 
jective accomplishment. On this point no 


108 / 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


other particulars can be inferred from our pas- 
sage. 

8. While the not-sinning and the impossibility of 
sinning on the part of a Christian born of God, 
must be held fast as a fact, we must be on our 
guard against hasty inferences therefrom, for 
which John gives us no warrant. In the first 
place this passage (v. 9) must be susceptible of 
a construction that does not contradict ch. i. 8 
sqq., for John could not have made both state- 
ments, if they were incompatible with one an- 
other. Hence the Roman Catholics are as much 
in the wrong for holding, as de Lyra says, that 
it is the prerogative of the saints, 7. e. only indi- 
viduals in virtue of special grace in regeneration, 
not to sin and not being able to sin, as are the Lu- 
therans for contending that all truly regenerated 
persons live without sin; for such an assertion 
is as arrogant as that contained in the sentence 
of Seneca, the Stoic (see Diisterdieck 11. 148 
from Wetstein): <‘‘Vir bonus non potest non 
Jfacere, quod facit; in omni actu par sibt, jam non 
consilio bonus, sed more eo perductus; ut non tantum 
recte facere possit, sed nist recte facere non possit.”’ 
1 Jno. i. 8 sqq. forbids such a construction of ch. 
iii. 9. The Gichtelites, who in virtue of Matth. 
xxii, 30 used to call themselves the brethren of 
the angels and refusing to be considered a sect 
laid claim to being the invisible Church, and the 
Molinists who were Quietists, claimed with some 
Pietists such a state of perfection, and being 
called Perfectists by their adversaries, called 
them in turn Conatists ; the Methodists who main- 
tain that they stand daily and hourly in need of 
the atoning merits of Christ do not belong to 
this category although they hold the sinless per- 
fection of the regenerate; but this certainly 
exposes them like the Roman Catholics to the 
danger of regarding or treating concupiscence as 
a matter of indifference. The Synod of Dort, 
moreover, cannot on the strength of this passage 
reject the following proposition (see Niemeyer, 
p. 719 sub III): ‘Vere credentes et regenitos non 
tantum posse a fide justificante, item gratia et salute 
totaliter et finaliter excidere, sed etiam reipsa non raro 
ex iis excidere atque in xternum perire,”’ nor is 
Calvin warranted to say: ‘Johannes non solum 
docet, quam efficaciter agat semel deus in homine, sed 
clare affirmat, spiritum suam gratiam in nobis av 
EXTREMUM USQUE PERSEQUI, UT AD VITEH NOVITA- 
TEM INFLEXIBILIS PERSEVERANTIA ACCEDAT,”’ be- 
cause the Apostle teaches here not a word on that 
subject. He neither says ch. i. 8 sqq. that the 
regenerate in reality does not seldom fall from 
grace and perish eternally (!), but only, that his 
sinning notwithstanding, his sins would be for- 
given him, nor here at ch, iii. 9, that the gift of 
sonship and regeneration can never be lost again 
or impaired, or that the σπέρμα is and must be 
brought to perfection in every child of God, or 
that the donum perseverantiz is added by God to 
the gift of His grace, so that the two are inti- 
mately united and inseparable. A view hitting 
the truth may be found already in Jovinian (at the 
end of the fourth century) as stated in the con- 
troversial writing of his opponent (Hieronymus 
adv, Jovinianum libri IL), if we remember that he 
said besides what here follows, viz: ‘cos; gui 
plena fide in baptismate renati sunt, a diabolo non 
posse subverti,”’ or “ἃ diabolo non posse tentari; 


quicunque autem tentati fuerint, ostendi eos aqua 
tantum et non spiritu baptizatos’”’—that the Chris- 
tian is not called upon to fight and to labour 
“μὲ majora premia accipiat”’ but only ‘‘ne perdat 
quod accepit,” and that he did add ““ gui suum bap- 
tisma servaverint.”” For John neither affirms nor 
excludes by an intimation that the work and act 
of God to man must be accepted and received by 
man, that man with the divinely-given strength 
must become self-acting so that he not only do 
not resist and thus not resisting, obicem non 
ponens, become sanctified after having been jus- 
tified, but also that entering into the work and 
act of God he exercise himself by his own perso- 
nal efforts and thus appropriate more and more 
and receive into his own nature that which is 
God’s, by giving up and sacrificing his self with- 
out doing injury to his seity. All these things 
John does not touch upon because he is not con- 
cerned with subjective execution but solely with 
the objective ground and foundation. Hence he 
says: he that is born of God, as such (as God’s 
child), without any reference to his former con- 
dition and its reaction, does not really sin in the 
literal acceptation of the term; sin may still take 
place in him, but Ae himself, as the child of God, 
in the power of regeneration, does not and cannot 
commit it (cf. Harless Ethics ἢ 26. **).—Hence 
we cannot see at all why the regenerate, if he 
neglects, in conflicts and collisions which may 
arise, to be on his guard and to hold fast all that 
God has given to him, done for him and is 
offering to him, may not by degrees fall entirely 
from grace, and such an issue necessitates or 
justifies the assumption that God did not seri- 
ously intend, energetically will and efficiently 
accomplish his regeneration and that lastly the 
lapsed was right and God in the wrong, that it is 
God’s fault that he, though already redeemed from 
the power of the devil, had again fallen a prey to 
the devil. Heb. vi. 4 sqq. which only declares 
that it is impossible to recover those who have‘ 
fallen away from such true regeneration has no 
connection with this passage (in opposition to 
Ebrard), but we ought rather to take note of 
μένων in γ. 6., which points to that unexpressed 
train of thought. Cf. Rom. vii. 15 sqq. where 
mention is made of the éow ἄνθρωπος as the σπέρμα 
ϑεοῦ and the ἐγὼ of the regenerate warring 
against the old ego.—[Diisterdieck: ‘The diffe- 
rence between the older and more modern expo- 
sitors! lies in this, that the former are more anx- 
ious to moderate the details of the Apostle’s sen- 
timent, and to tone down his assertion to the ac- 
tual life of Christians, while the moderns recog- 
nize the full precision of the text as it stands, but 
then remind us that the ideal truth of the prin- 
ciple announced by St. John continually, so to 
speak, floats above the actual life of believers 
as their rule and aim, and that, in so far, the 
Apostle’s saying finds in such actual life only a 
relative fulfilment. None however of all the ex- 
positors, who in any way has recognized the 
ideal character of St. John’s view, has overlooked 
the fact, that even jn the actual life of all that 
are born of God there is something which in full 
verity answers to the ideal words ‘they cannot 
sin.” The children of God, in whom the Divine 


1. Liicke, Rickli, de Wette and Neauder. 


CHAP. III. 4-10. 


109 


seed of their eternal life abides, have, in reality, 
a holy privilege, as Steinhofer says,—they sin 
not and they cannot sin, just in proportion as the 
new Divine life, unconditionally opposed to all 
sin, and manifesting itself in godlike righteous- 
ness, is present and abides inthem. Expositors 
of all these logical tendencies, in all times, e. g. 
Didymus, Oecum., Estius, Schlichting, Luther, 
Hunnius, Seb. Schmidt, Calov, Bengel, Joachim 
Lange, Kosenmiiller, Liicke, Neander, etc. point 
to this, that the new life of believers, veritably 
begouten by regeneration from God, is simply 
incompatible with sin1; the life which essentially 
alienates the spirit from all sin,? fills it with an 
irreconcilable hate against every sin, and urges 
it to an increasing conflict against all unright- 
eousness. Luther excellently says, that a child 
of God in this conflict receives indeed wounds 
daily, but never throws away his arms or makes 
peace with his deadly foe. Sin is ever active, 
but no longer dominant; the normal direction of 
life’s energies in the believer is against sin, is an 
absence of sin, a no-will-to-sin and a no-power- 
to-sin. He thatis born of God has become, from 
being a servant of sin, a servant of righteousness; 
according to the Divine seed remaining in him, 
or, as St. Paul says, according to the inner man’, 
he will and he can work only that which is like 
God,—righteousness, though the flesh not yet 
fully mortified, rebels and sins: so that even in 
and by the power of the new life sin must be 
ever confessed, forgiveness received‘, the tempta- 
tion of the evil one avoided and overcome’, and 
self-purification and sanctification carried on.” 
—M. |. 

9. an speaks of being born in order to live, 
Paul of dying in order to live. 

[ Ezek. Hopkins: This place may, perhaps, be 
among the number of those, that had been more 
clear, if they had been less expounded. I shall 
only give you the genuine native sense of the 
words and then proceed to manage them to my 
present purpose. Whosoever is born of God doth 
not commit sin. Some from hence have concluded 
a possibility, at least, of a sinless state in this 
life: others, the infallible certainty of it; not 
only that a child of God might attain to such a 
perfection as is exclusive of all sin, but that who- 
ever is a child of God cannot upon that very ac- 
count be guilty of any sin: so like are errors to 
precipices, that, if a man lose his firm footing, 
usually he falls headlong; nor does he stop, till 
he dash himself against the bottom and founda- 
tion of all religion and piety: had these men but 
seriously pondered what the same Apostle saith 
in his first chapter, vv. 8, 10: “Jf we say that we 
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is 
not in us;” and ‘If we say that we have not sinned, 
we make God a liar,” they would not have enter- 
tained such an over-weening conceit of a spotless 
perfection of life here; whereof the greatest part 
is no better than sin and the best of it, but too, 
too much defiled with it. Others interpret thus: 
So long as we are the children of God, we can- 


1. Didymus: ἀκόλουθον καὶ ἀνάρμοστον. 

2. Oecumenius: ἀνεπίδεκτον ἁμαρτίας τὸν νοῦν 
ἡμῶν ποιεῖ. 

3. Kom. viii. 15. 

4, Ch. i. 8 sqq. 

5. V. 18. 


not sin; and so the Papists go; but these go 
upon an erroneous supposition, that every mortal 
sin, as they call them, makes an intercision of 
justifying grace; and doth, as it were, annihil- 
ate the new creature. Others interpret it thus: 
in quantum sumus filii Dei: we cannot sin under 
that respect and notion, as we are the children of 
God; but even so far as we are, the best of us in 
the most part, unrenewed; though this is a certain 
truth, yet it is but a dilute and waterish exposi- 
tion of this place; and it amounts to no more 
than this, that a regenerate man sins not as he 
is regenerate, that the principle of grace in him 
is not that principle from whence sinful actions 
proceed; and certainly, no man, that considers 
the weight of this Scripture expression, will 
think that the Apostle, by such an instance and 
ingemination, would press so thin a meaning as 
this is. The interpretation, therefore, that I 
judge to be the most natural and unforced is 
this: He, that ἐς born of God, doth not commit sin; 
that is, he doth not sin in that malignant man- 
ner, in which the children of the devil do: he 
doth not make a trade of sin, nor live in the con- 
stant and allowed practice of it. Neither can he 
thus sin, because Ais seed remaineth in him; that 
is either the energy of the word of God whereby 
he is begotten again to a spiritual life, or the 
complexion of .the graces of the spirit that are 
as it were the seminary and the seed-plot of 
glory. Nor he cannot sin, because his seed re- 
maineth in him: this seed remains, and keeps him, 
that he cannot sin; either as apostates do who 
totally forsake the ways of God, or as profane 
persons do, who neyer embraced them. There 
is a great difference betwixt regenerate and unre- 
generate persons, in the very sins that they com- 
mit: all, indeed, sin; but a child of God cannot 
sin; that is, though he doth sin, yet he cannot 
sin after such a manner as wicked and unregene- 
rate men do: there is a vast difference betwixt 
them, even in that wherein they do most of all 
agree: see that place in Deut. xxxii. 5. Their 
spot is not the spot of his children: even deformi- 
ties themselves are characteristic: and a true 
Christian may come to know by his sins, that he 
is nota sinner. And, as they differ in the com- 
mitting of sin, so much more in the opposing of 
it.” —M. ]. 
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Thou art wont in other respects to attach im- 
portance to the right name and the right word. 
Well, sin is immorality ; what thou callest a slip, 
an error, an infirmity ora foible, is essentially— 
immorality.—Be not concerned as much about 
earthly losses or disgrace before men as about 
outraging the Divine majesty, which marks the 
nature of sin even more graphically than the 
outrage done to thy own soul.—What does it 
avail thee to be praised of men, even in news- 
papers, if God regards thee as a transgressor? 
Remember the case of Chrysostom, Bishop of 
Constantinople, who was hateful to the Emperor; 
the courtiers said: ‘‘Burn him, confiscate his 
property, put him in irons, and have him killed.” 
But others replied, saying: ‘You will not gain 
anything by all this; for in exile he would finda 
home with his God; you deprive the poor, not 
him, of property; he kisses his chains; death 


110 


opens heaven to him. There is only one way to 
render him unhappy; force him to sin; he fears 
nothing in the world but sin.’’—Dost thou honestly 
abide the law of the land, especially the funda- 
mental law—then maintain also the law of God’s 
kingdom, His fundamental law.—The sinner does 
the very thing which Christ desires to remove: 
he twines for Him a crown of thorns and crucifies 
Him anew.—Hold fast the sinlessness and death 
of Christ. Why was it necessary for the Sinless 
One to die if not for the sinof men? What is he 
that does not like the Sinless One and does every 
thing in his power to put Him out of the way? 
What is the public opinion which crowned that 
attempt with success? Of what consequence 
must sin be, if He had to die by and for it?—He 
did not come for the sake of the doctrine, which 
did not take away sin, that the prophet might 
be praised, but He came for the sake of sin, that 
the Lamb of God and the High priest might be 
praised together.—He came to acquire for Him- 
self a people that it might live of and by Him; 
He came not to receive from it what were its pos- 
sessions, but to take away from it, what is its 
grievance and to grant to it His glory.—A Chris- 
tian, as a Christian, never does sin, he only suffers 
it.—In and with Christ we lose all pleasure in 
sin and loathe its service.—Sin dazzles men and 
prevents their seeing and knowing the glory of 
Christ.—To overlook the glory of Christ denotes 
not a low degree of immorality.—The illumina- 
tion of our spirit is not without the purification 
of our heart, without the deliverance of our will 
from the chains of sin.—As sin is ever growing 
so that thin threads of lust become cords of vanity 
and. cart-ropes of unrighteousness (Is, y. 18), the 
small rent of doubt grows into a shipwreck con- 
cerning faith (1 Tim. i. 19) and a little spark 
causes a great fire (Jas. iii. 5), so in like manner 
the forgiveness of sins in justification grows to 
the annihilation of sin in sanctification, and the re- 
generate grows into manhood, so that while Ahab, 
though wholly mail-clad, was mortally wounded 
in one place, Paul though bitten by a venomous 
viper, shook off the beast into the fire and re- 
mained unhurt.—Christ is the point where men 
must choose the way that leadeth to the kingdom 
of darkness, or that which conducts to the king- 
dom of light.—Man’s way ends in the former 
kingdom with his belonging to Satan, but it 
begins in the latter with his regeneration.—Just 
those who are the aevil’s know least of him, deny 
his existence and personality; those who with 
God resist him, know his nature and power much 
better than his servants.—Be not deceived, 1. 
Concerning the nature of sin; 2. Concerning the 
glory of Christ; 3. Concerning the activity of 
Satan; 4. Concerning the power of regenera- 
tion.—Fear sin! 1. It breaks the ordinance of 
God; 2. It is the cause of Christ’s sufferings; 8. 
It leads to the slavery of Satan; 4. It destroys 
thy adoption of God.—Child of God, rejoice! 1, 
God’s law is a sure and straight path; 2. The 
merit of Christ affords thee a mighty help; 3. 
The gift of the Spirit wil! yield thee precious 
fruit. 

Avaustine :—The doing of righteousness does 
not precede but succeed justification. 

Starke :—Whatever is contrary to the law of 
God, whether done inwardly or outwardly, in 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


thought, manner, words or works—is sin.—Let 
every one diligently study the law of God so that 
he may learn what is right and wrong and ποῦ. 
do ignorantly what might have been avoided.— 
Sin must be a terrible and horrible thing, because 
for its sake Christ had to come, to suffer and to 
die. Every thing is in harmony: begone, sin! 
there is no room for thee with the redeemed! It 
is apostasy from the law, the opposite of the 
Image of Christ, the progeny of Satan, a mark of 
his slaves.—Thou sayest: I am a sinful man and 
not a sinful angel! True; but if thou art truly 
a believing Christian, sin must not reign in thee 
but thou must reign over sin and not serve sin in 
any particular.—Not certain, believers are ex- 
posed to the danger of being seduced.—Appear- 
ance, propriety of conduct, and observance of the 
externals of worship are not paramount in Chris- 
tianity, but the heart must be changed and that 
takes place in regeneration.—It is ill-befitting a 
Christian to appeal to and boast of his illustrious 
descent, the distinction of his family and connec- 
tions; the grace of regeneration, which invests 
him with the prerogatives of the adoption, truly 
ennobles him before God and men.—The children 
of Satan are often unknown, but more to them- 
selyes and those like them than to the godly.— 
The godly also are often hidden, but more from 
the ungodly than from themselves, for they know 
very well in virtue of the spirit of adoption both 
what they have received and what is promised to 
them.—There is a difference between the children 
of God and the children of the devil; they may 
and ought to be identified, but the identification 
requires a spiritual discernment, otherwise it 
cannot take place.—Honest preachers must not. 
give evangelical consolation to those who are 
openly ungodly, though they say that preachers 
cannot condemn. True; they cannot condemn 
but they can denounce the damnable condition. 

Benaet:—“ Iniquitas horribilius quiddam, apud 
608 preesertim, qui legem et dei voluntatem magni fact- 
unt, sonat, quam peccatum. Ex lege agnitio peccati. 
Linea curva cernitur per se; sed magis, ad regulam 
collata.” 

SrernuoreR:—The children of God in whom 
the divine seed of their eternal life is truly abid- 
ing, have really the holy privilege of not being 
able to sin. 

Hevupner:—Not the hurtfulness of sin is its 
nature, for that is accidental, but its opposition 
to God.—The chief purpose of the manifestation 
of Christ was the cancelling of sin, the atonement 
for our sin, and sanctification by means of recon- 
ciliation. Hence continuing in sin frustrates the 
purpose of Christ and contradicts His holiness.— 
Christianity is not gnosis, but an honest mind and 
conversation.—Recollect that as long as pppeng 
is thy element, thou art in the devil’s sphere anc 
exposed to his influence.—Take note: 1. That 
the destruction of the works of the deyil is not 
something that has been done, finished and per- 
fected once for all but is progressive in its nature, 
advancing to perfection to the end of time. 2. 
That Christ has laid the foundation by His suf- 
fering and death as well as by the establishment 
of His Church, that incessant warfare may be 
waged against the kingdom of the devil and that 
at the last it shall be entirely destroyed. 8, 
That Christ has enabled all who believe in Him 


CHAP. III. 4-10. 


111 


and receive His power to overcome Satan. The 
power of Satan is broken in believers. The 
works of the devil are being destroyed in propor- 
tion as the Gospel spreads intensively and ex- 
tensively. 4. That the absolute and total de- 
struction of the kingdom of the devil will take 
place at the second coming of Christ. Then it 
will be fully consummated. At present believers 
are only called upon to make war against Satan.— 
As the seed does only push forth the fruit it con- 
tains, and cannot produce a fruit different in 
kind, and as it is peculiar to the nature, even to 
the germinating principle in the seed to produce 
the right fruit, so it is also with those in whom 
is laid the seed of God, the Spirit of God; its 
germinating principle prompts godliness of living. 
But this does not warrant the assertion of ab- 
solute sinlessness.—It is not a physically absolute 
impossibility, but a moral impossibility; it is 
impossible to the sanctified will.—The indwelling 
spirit effects so essential a difference among men, 
that it seems as if they were wholly different 
races. But because it is invisible, God causes it 
to become manifest in its persevering fruit. —How 
sharply does Holy Scripture distinguish between 
men; they are either the children of God or the 
children of the devil; it knows nothing of half- 
Christians, of an amphibious race; man can only 
be one or the other.—Be not deceived by this 
sharp dichotomy, as if it were unkind and un- 
charitable thus to judge, for it is not taught here 
that we should thus judge and classify others (for 
that is the prerogative of God), but that we should 
judge and range ourselves. 

Rernuarp:—Christ takes away 
1. The deception and fraud of sin—by His doctrine. 
2. The punishment of sin—by His death. 

3. The dominion of sin—by His Spirit and example. 

Bresser:—With God every transgression is a 
crime; the Judge above does not treat sin as a 
trifle, a peccadillo (peccatilio, a little sin). Every 
sin and all sin has the character of treason.— 
True Christians know that the Saviour was mani- 
fested as the enemy and atoner of sin, and they 
agree with Him in heart and mind in pronounc- 
ing the same sentence on sin which was passed 
upon itin His bitter sufferings and painful death. 
Every one that abides in Christ, to whom he 
belongs once for all, does not commit sin, but says 
no to sin, which belongs to the old man, and 
resists its foreign power. The Christian’s will, 
his ego resting in and governed by Christ is not 
one with sin but one with Christ in whom there 
is no sin. Hatred of sin is the feeling which the 
children of God have in common, the love of sin 
the universal dowry of the children of the devil. 
Just as only those truly love good who know 
the Good One, so they only hate evil with per- 
fect hatred who hate the Hvil One as actively 
engaged in every evil and abhor sin as the work 
cf the beginner of sin.—The will which worketh 
sin, is of the devil and not of God. Out of the new, 
divine life-ground laid in the children of God 
grows up the pure delight in the good and perfect 
will of God, and whatever is displeasing to the 
Father (and sin is unrighteousness and wrong) is 
equally displeasing to the child. 

THotucKk:—Do not trifle with sin. 1. Because 
our hope is so glorious. Here the blessed rights 
of children, there the splendour and joys of 

27 


children; should not he shun sin that hath such 
ahope? Ingratitude is one of the meanest vices; 
he that does not experience the necessity of grati- 
tude for benefits received is one of the poorest 
and most hopeless of men. Christ who burst the 
chains and shunned no indignity in order to help 
us, Should we not be grateful to Him—by fight- 
ing against sin? 2. Because sin is so culpable. 
Sin, did it only hurt ws, we might get over it, 
but as it hurts God, it becomes a more fearful 
thing. The true child of God ceases to commit 
sin and greatly grieves at the presence of any 
and every sin. [A stanza of a German hymn.— 
M.] Every, even the smallest sin always hits 
the nerve of the law, unlike the eye, where the 
skin only and not the ophthalmic nerve needs to 
be injured; and the sinful lust is followed by the 
culpable word and the culpable word by the cul- 
pable deed. Misfortune is seldom alone and sin 
even more seldom. To become free from sin is 
the life-task of the Christian. He knows of no 
care greater than that of getting rid of a diseased 
conscience. Repentance cuts the nerve away from 
the lust of sin. 

GeRok:—(on ch. 11, 28—iii. 8). Of the para- 
dise of the divine sonship. 1. of the noble state of 
being achild; 2. of the holy duty of a child; 8. of 
the blessed children’s right of the children of 
God. 

[V. 7. Burxrrr:—The Scriptures speak of 
doing righteousness in two senses: 1. in a legal 
sense, which consists in an exact obedience and 
fulfilling of the law; and thus there is ‘“‘none 
righteous, no not one;” 2. in an evangelical sense, 
which means walking uprightly according to the 
rules of the Gospel, conscientiously avoiding all 
known sin, and performing every commanded 
duty, observing a constant course of holy actions 
and making it our daily care to please God in all 
that we do. And it is the duty of every Chris- 
tian, who would not be deceived as to his spirit- 
ual condition, to try himself by this infallible 
mark: ‘He that doeth righteousness is right- 
eous;—whosoeyer doeth not righteousness is not 
of God.””—M. ]. 

[V. 8. Be. Hatt :—He that gives himself over 
to the commission of sin, and makes it his willing 
practice, that man is not of God but of the devil: 
for it is and hath been, the trade of that wicked 
spirit, even from the beginning, ever since his 
fall [?], to sin against God, and to draw others 
into sin and condemnation with him.—M. ]. 

[Secker :—Herein is the plain trial of our con- 
dition. If we are destitute of ‘‘the fruits of the 
spirit,” it is bad; if we find them in our hearts 
and lives, we have proof enough of its being good, 
and need never disquiet ourselves for want of any 
other. Being able to tell the very moment when 
we became pious and virtuous, is not material, 
provided we are so now; and happiest of all are 
they, who remember not themselves ever to have 
been otherwise. All feelings are imaginary and 
deceitful, unless they be accompanied with that 
one, which the Apostle experienced and men- 
tioned: ‘For our rejoicing is this, the testimony 
of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly 
sincerity we have had our conversation in the 
world.” 2 Cor. i. 12. Our Saviour’s rule of 
‘knowing every tree by its fruits’? Luke vi. 44, 
is the only sure way to judge of ourselves as well 


112 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF, JOHN. 


CSS ae En EES? a GL ae ee RT Se SS τας a SS oe oe 


as of others. And though we may perhaps be 
sometimes at a loss how to judge, or inclined, 
and eyen strongly, to fear the worst; yet if this 
arise not from presumptuous sins or habitual 
negligence, but merely from excessive humility or 
weakness of spirits, a modest diffidence will never 
hinder our future happiness, nor will a bold po- 
gitiveness ever forward it. Good men may be 
cast down and bad men elevated without any 
reason. The former may see much in themselves 
to dislike; and yet God may see enough of what 
He approves to accept them: they may experience 
little joy in serving Him, and yet “walk” more 
completely ‘worthy of the Lord unto all 
pleasing,” Col. i. 10, for doing it without the 
encouragement of a present reward. The latter, 
on the other hand, may build upon groundless 
fancies of their own, mistaking them for Divine 
communications: may be absolutely confident, 
wonderfully transported, yet find themselves at 
last fatally deceived. It is not, therefore, by 
their fears, or their hopes, or their raptures, 
that men are to judge of their spiritual condition. 
“Hereby,” saith St. John, “do we know that we 
know God, if we keep His commandments,” ch. 
ii. 3. ‘Little children, let no man deceive you: 
he that doeth righteousness is righteous; he that 
committeth sin is of the devil.” —M. ] 


[Tucker :—As therefore we are well assured, 
that repentance will re-instate us, and that obe- 
dience will continue us, in the Divine favour, ac- 
cording to the gracious terms of the Gospel, so 
let us likewise remember, that he who wilfully 
and habitually committeth sin, whatever evidence 
of his new birth or justification, his adoption or 
acceptance, he may fancy himself possessed of, 
is actually no other than the servant of sin and 
the slave of the devil. In short, virtue and vice, 
holiness and wickedness, Christ and Belial, can 
never, never unite together. If therefore we 
design ourselves to be the candidates for heaven, 
we must endeavour to acquire such qualifications 
as will render us fit for that holy place. Because 
unless we really acquire them during the present 
state, the alternative is dreadful indeed: for he 
who committeth sin is of the devil. How shock- 
ing even to repeat; yet much more shocking to 
feel! to feel not only for a time but forever! 
Whereas on the contrary, ‘“‘he who doeth right- 
eousness is righteous, even as He is righteous;”’ 
righteous he is, because he will have, not only 
his manifold failings and imperfections all for- 
given, through the mercies of the Gospel-cove- 
nant, but even his deliberate sins and offences 
cancelled and blotted out on his sincere repent- 
ance: and what is still more than ever could 
have been thought of, much less petitioned for, 
he will find himself permitted to appear before 
God as ‘‘holy, unblameable and unreproveable 
in His sight,” Col. i. 22.—M.]. 


{Ver. 9. Pyte: Whosoever ts born of God, ete. 
As if he had said: In fine, while a man preserves 
his Christian principle, and answers the charac- 
ter of a true member of God’s Church, he can 
never be guilty of deliberate and habitual*vice. 
Make it therefore a sure test to whom a man be- 
longs, in whose service he is listed, and from 
whom he may expect his wages, whether of God 
or of the devil, by the good or wicked practices 


of his life, by his behaviour towards God and to- 
wards his brethren.—M. ]. 

[ Hammonp :—The phrase ‘born of God” is not 
to be taken here, as to denote the single transient 
act of regeneration; but rather a continued 
course, a permanent state, so that a regenerate 
man and a child of God are of the same meaning, 
and signify him that lives a pious and godly life 
and continues to do so. For the phrase “a 
child” or ‘‘a son” of any kind of father, signi- 
fies a resemblance or similitude of inclinations 
and actions; as a child of the devil, Acts xiii. 10; 
sons of Belial, Judges xix. 22; children of Abra- 
ham, Gal. iii. 7. And so generally in this Epis- 
tle, he that is “born of God,” signifies a man 
truly pious, an obedient servant of God: and 
such isthe subject of this proposition when of such 
an one it is said, that ‘‘he cannot sin:” not af- 
firming that he cannot cease to be what he is, 
cannot fall off from the performance of his duty, 
of the possibility of which the niany warnings and ἡ 
exhortations that are given to pious men are evi- 
dences, see ch. ii. 1; 1 Cor. x. 12; Heb. iii. 12; 2 
Pet. iii. 17; but that remaining thus, a pious fol- 
lower, imitator, and so a ‘‘child of God,’’ he can- 
not yield deliberately to any kind of sin.—M.]. 

[Wuirsy :—He cannot sin. Now that doth not 
import a good man cannot be overtaken with a 
fault (Gal. vi. 1). No, even those ‘little chil- 
dren” whose ‘sins are forgiven,” and who have 
‘known the Father,’ may and will be obnoxious 
still to some infirmities and wanderings out of 
the way. (ch. ii. 1). They may “sin not unto 
death,” and therefore may still have the spiritual 
life remaining in them (vy. 16-18). But the true 
import of that phrase is this (Ita de Catone Minore 
Velleius Paterculus: Homo virtuti simillimus, et 
per omnia ingenio diis quam hominibus proprior, qui 
nunquam recte fecit ut facere videretur, sed quia 
aliter, facere non poterat. Hist. R. 11. 84. Οπιπῖ- 
bus humanis vitiis immunis. Ibid.): That he hath 
such an inward frame of heart, such a disposition 
of spirit, as renders sin exceedimg odious and 
hateful to him; so that he cannot entertain the 
thoughts of doing it, or a temptation to commit 
it, without the utmost detestation and the great- 
est horror, and so can very rarely, and only 
through,surprise, or want of due deliberation, or 
through such violent temptations as prevent or 
hinder his consideration, be obnoxious to sin; 
and when he comes to consider of such an ac- 
tion, is presently condemning himself for it, bit- 
terly repenting of it, and for the future watching 
most carefully against it. Cf. Matth. xii. 34; 
xvil. 18; Jno. vii. 7; vili. 48; xii. 39; xiv. 17; 
Rom. viii. 7, 8; 1 Cor. ii. 14; Rev. ii. 2.—M.]. 

He that committeth sin is of the devil. Itis not 
he who committeth one or more sins of infirmity, 
for so did Christ’s disciples while they were with 
Him; nor he who committeth one great sin 
through the power of a strong temptation, of 
which he bitterly repents, and from which he 
returns to his obedience; for thus did David and 
Peter, who yet were not then the children of the 
devil; but they who comply with the lusis of 
Satan and who will do them. Jno. viii. 44. The 
other interpretations which are given of these 
words seem either vain or impertinent, or false 
and dangerous, and 

1. Vain is that sense which some put on these 


CHAP. III. 10-18. 


113 


ee 


words: ‘‘He that is born of God, non debet pec- 
care, ought not to sin,” or that it is absurd for 
him to sin; for the Apostle speaks not of what 
he ought not to do, but of what he doth not. 
Such is that also of those fathers, who interpret 
this of him who is perfectly born of God by a 
παλιγγενεσία, or ““ἃ resurrection from the dead,” 
for the Apostle doth not speak of what he shall 
do hereafter, but of what he doth not do at 
present. 

2. False seems to be the sense which Origen, 
Jerome, and Ambrose put upon the words, that 
“he that is born of God sinneth not, guamdiu re- 
natus est, whilst he is born of God, because he 
ceaseth to be a child of God when he sins; for 
this is not only confuted by the examples of David 
and Peter, whose faith under that great miscar- 
riage failed not (Luke xxii. 82), but by the 
words of the Apostle, ‘Little children, if we sin 
we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus 
Christ the Righteous, and He is the Propitiation 
for our sins’” (Jno. ii. 1), who yet is only the 
Advocate for the sons of God. For the same 
reason I cannot assent to that exposition which 
saith: ‘‘A child of God cannot be guilty of any 


great or deliberate crime,” as Tertullian, de 
pudicitia c. 19. 

3. Dangerous is the exposition of Bernard (Jn 
Septuag. Serm. 1), that ‘‘they who are born of 
God sin not, guia etiamsi peccata illis neutiquam 
imputentur, because their sins will never be im- 
puted to them;” and of those who think it suf- 
ficient to say, ‘‘He sins not without great reluc- 
tancy, or not willingly, the evil that he doeth 
being that which he would not do;” for the 
will of that man, who, after some contest in his 
soul, yields to the commission of sin, is more 
strongly inclined to sin than to the avoiding of 
it, and so is not renewed. Nor doth the Apostle 
say, he that is born of God sins not willingly, 
or without reluctance; but absolutely, ‘He doth 
not commit sin.” 

[I conclude with Gataker: ‘He that is born of 
God sinneth not,” that is: Vitam a peccato im- 
muneum quantum potest sibi proponit, nec peccato 
unguam sponte dat operam; sti aliquando preter 
animi propositum deliquerit, non in eodem persistit, 
sed errore agnito, ad institutum vite pristinum quam~ 
primum quantumque potest, festinus revertitur.”— 


4. Brotherly love is the sum-total of the Divine law. 


CHAPTER III. 103-18. 


102 Whosoever" doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither? he that loveth not his 
11 brother. For’ this is the message‘ that ye heard from the beginning, that we should 


Because his own’ works were evil, and’ his brother’s 


He that loveth not 


Hereby perceive! we 


12 love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one,’ and slew his brother. 
And wherefore slew he him? 
13 righteous. Marvel not, my brethren,’ if the world hate? you. We know that we 
14 have passed from” death unto life, because we love the brethren. 
15 his brother" abideth in death. Whosoever” hateth his brother is a murderer: and 
16 ye know that no murderer’ hath eternal life abiding in him. 
the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down 
17 our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world’s good,* and seeth his brother 
have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion" from him, how dwelleth the® 
18 love of God in him? 


but in deed and in truth. 


Verse 10b.[1 tas o=‘ Every one that.” 


My” little children, let us not love in word, neither in” tongue; 


So German.—M.] 


2 «ai—‘ And.” So German, and most foreign versions.—M.] 


ἢ oT .—* Because.” 


fayyedAta A.B.G.K.; ἐπαγγελέα C. Sin. and a few, unimportant Codd.—The context admits the 


sense * promise ” only on the artificial interpretation that it is a gift and a happiness to love. 


[Sov καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἣν. German: “Notas Cain was of the wicked one.”—Liicke: 


“ Some supply after ov: ἀγαπῶμεν, others ποιῶ μεν and the like. But in the first case there arises 
an irony unsuitable in this connection; and in both cases a second supplement becomes necessary, to wit, 
of ὃς after Kaiv, which, as the omission of the relative pronoun is in classic as well as in N. T. Greek 
without example, could hardly be justified. Much simpler is it with Grotius to complete the sentence 


thus: οὐκ ὦμεν ἐκ TOD πονηροῦ, καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ Hv.” 


Winer: “ Pro- 


perly, there is nothing to be supplied (ὧμεν or ποιῶμεν would not suit οὐ ), but, the comparison 
being negligently expressed, the reader easily adjusts the clauses for himself: that we love one another, 


not as Crin was of the wicked one, etc., shall it or may it be so with us.” 


For further authorities see 


[6 German: “Because his works were wicked, but his brother’s righteous.” It is difficult to determine the 


Verse 11. So German.—M.] 
Verse 12. 

Lillie—M. ] 

right reading, whether it ivavrod, 

pondence between Κα ἀϊν ἐκ τοῦ 

all means be brought out.—M.] 

[7 5é=“ but,” not “and,” as E. V.—M.] 

Verse 13. 


αὑτοῦον ἑαυτοῦ (B.) Most probably avro0v.—The corres- 
πονηροῦ ἣν and τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἣν should by 


[8 German: “ Marvel not, brethren,” agreeing with Sin. G. K. Rec. al, in omitting «ov—M,] 


[9 μισεῖ. German, Wiclif. al. retain the Indicative mood.—M.] 


114 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Verse 14. ῳ German: “ We have passed out of death into 11{6."--Μ. 
᾿Αγαπῶν without τὸν ἀδελφὸν, A. B.Sin.; with it C. G. K., although less authentic, and rather 
inserted than omitted. [German: omits the words, and renders: “He that loveth not abideth in 


death.” —M.] 
Verse 15. fis πᾶς o=Every one—M.] 


3 ἀνθρωποκτόνος; German: “man-murderer,” but better to render, “man-killer’ (Lillie following 
Rhemish vers. at Jno. viii. 44), which is free from the extenuating force suggested by the technical use 
of such words as “ homicide” or “ man-slaughter.”—M.] 


Verse 16. [14 German: “ Hereby have we known.’’—M.] 


16 θεῖναι A. B.C. Sin. al., decidedly preferable to τιθέναι 6. K. al. 


Verse 17. [16 German: “ Life-susterance.” 


Goods might be used in that sense.—M.] 


27 German: “ His inwards ;” but “ bowels” without the supplement “compassion” should by all means 


be retained.—M.] 


Wan αὐτοῦ A.B. C.Sin.; the words are omitted only by several unimportant Codd. 


C German: “ Abideth.”—M.] 


μον after rexvia occurs in Rec. after G. K., but is wanting in the best Codd.—M.] 
21 The Article τῇ before γλώσσῃ is wanting in Rec. Sin., but found in A. B. C. G. K. and most of the 


Codd. verss. and editions. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


The transition. v. 10d. 

Ver. 106. Every one that doeth not 
righteousness, is not of God.—Thus the 
Apostle compresses the one, positive, formally 
taken and described side of the preceding section 
and having thus fully, concisely and distinctly 
recapitulated, he now quickly adds the essential 
characteristic of that righteousness as the leading 
theme of what follows, viz: 

And he that loveth not his brother.— 
Calvin: ‘Hoe membrum vice expositonis additum 
est.” It is interesting to compare the progress 
of thought in this part with that in the first part: 
this section ch. iii. 10-18 is related to ch. 11. 29 
and iii. 1-10 like ch. ii. 6-11 to ch. i. 5 and i. 6 
—ii. 5; ii. 6, 7,11: ἡ ἐντολὴ, ὃ λόγος, ἡ ἀγγελία 
brotherly love, and ch. iii. 11 the ἀγγελία, ch. ii. 
7: ἣν eivere—y. 11: ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς as in 
ch. iii. 11; the ὀφείλειν ch. ii. 6 and iii. 16; and 
both times after the example of Christ; respec- 
tively disclosing our relation to death and life 
here (vv. 14, 15) and to light and darkness there 
(ch. ii. 9-11). But this section draws more on 
life (Cain and Abel ν. 12, poverty and benevo- 
lence vy. 17, 18) and reaches more into life. 

Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην refers back to ch. ii. 
29; iii. 7, but the omission of the Article renders 
the idea more general and indicates the leading 
thought with the self-evident reference to God 
and Christ. Thus ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ εἶναι denotes here 
both to be born of God and to be the child of 
God. Kai before 6 μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ is 
epexegetical, and explains δικαιοσύνη as ἀγάπη; 
hence it is neither—proinde (Episcopius) nor adds 
a new particular, something different (Rick, 
Socinus, who defines ἀγάπη as Christian virtue 
excelling Jewish legality); nor is ἀγάπη a part 
or moment of δικαιοσύνη (Bengel, Spener, Nean- 
der, Gerlach), but its ‘‘substance and nature” 
(Huther,* also Diisterdieck). Cf. Rom. xiii. 8-10; 
Gal. v. 14; Col. 111. 14; 1 Tim. i. 5; Jno. xiii. 
84 sq.; xiv. 15; xv. 12,17. ‘Brotherly love is 
the sum-total of all right-doing”’ (Besser), love is 
the fulfilling of the law. ᾿Αλλήλους, in the Johan- 


(* Huther in a note [2d ed. p. 163] replies to the objection 
of Ebrard and Myrberg that this could only apply to our 
love of God and not to our love of the brethren, that in 
John’s opinion Christian love of the brethren is identical 
with the love of God, because the Christian loves his brother 
as one born of God. He suggests also that ἀγάπη might be 
better defined as the “ essential exhibition’’ of δικαιοσύνη 
--Μ.]. 


(German: “with the tongue.”—M.]; ἐν, omitted by K.,is found in almost 
all the authoritative Codd., including Sin. 


nean passages like ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ here, denotes 
brotherly love, the love which Christians have 
for one another; so also in the corresponding 
sections ch. ii. 9-11 and iy. 20, 21. ᾿Αδελφὸς is 
consequently not—7Ayoiov Luke x. 36 (Ebrard, 
who sees here a contradiction to Matth. v. 44; 
1 Cor. iv. 12, but without sufficient reason; Rickli 
and others). 

The commandment of Christ. v. 11. 

Ver. 11. Because this is the message 
which ye have heard from the beginning, 
that we should love one another.—He that 
loves the brother must be (out) of God, and bro- 
therly love is the deed of righteousness, because 
the commandment is from Him. ᾿Αγγελία is here 
τεξέντολῇ ch. ii. 7. Bengel’s remark is only half 
true: ‘‘lberalissima appellatio, nunquam legem 
appellat;” ἐντολῇ oceurs often, but νόμος never. 
But the message implies the commandment as indi- 
cated by iva. The reading ἐπαγγελία, promise, 
cannot be sustained without a forced interpre- 
tation: it is the goodness, power and grace of 
God that we should love one another. The com- 
mandment of brotherly love has been given from 
the beginning, since the Gospel has been preached, 
since you haye been Christians; it isand remains 
indissolubly united with the Gospel and Chris- 
tianity ; ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς applies to the first and 
to all Christians. Ἵνα denotes the purpose, the 
work to be done and not only the substance or con- 
tents of the ἀγγελία (Huther), for the reference is 
not only to the substance of a commandment, but 
to a commandment specified by means of the 
message, which lies in the message given as a task, 
a work to be done. 

The opposite in Cain. vy. 12, 13. 

Ver. 12. Not, as Cain was of the wicked 
one and slew his brother.—The sentence is 
imperfect like Jno. vi. 58, and is a dreviloquentia, 
of frequent and diversified occurrence in the 
classics; cf. Winer, p. 646, who cites in a note a 
parallel sentence from Demosthenes (Mid. p. 415). 
The comparison is left incomplete, as in animated 
conversation when there is no room for misun- 
derstanding; there is nothing to be supplied; 
the reader or hearer knows from the context 
what is meant. In the present case: Not, as 
Cain was of the wicked one and slew his brother, 
(shall it or may it be so with us). [See note 5 
in Apparat. Crit.—M.]. Hence it is neither an 
independent exclamation (Sander); nor need we 
supply ὦμεν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ (Grotius, Liicke), nor 
ὃς (Beza, Socinus), nor sitis or the like-—’'Ek τοῦ 
πονηροῦ refers back to v. 8 as contrasted with ἐκ 


CHAP. III. 10-18. 


115 


τοῦ ϑεοῦ v. 105. Hence the reference is to the 
wicked one. The sentence specifies the reason 
of that action, even as y. 8. ποιεῖν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 
and ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει are correlates. [The 
wild notion of the Rabbis concerning the diabo- 
lical nature of Cain may be interesting to the 
student (Zohar in Genes. iv. 1): ‘‘ Rabbi Eleazar 
dixit: Cum projecisset serpens tlle immunditiem swam 
in Evam,eaque illam suscepisset, remque cum Adam 
habuisset, peperit duos filios, unum ex latere illo im- 
mundo et unum ex latere Adami; fuitque Cain similis 
imagine superiorum h. e. angelorum et Abel imagine 
inferiorum h. 6. hominum, ac propterea diverse fue- 
runt viz istius ab illius viis. Hquidem Cain fuit 
filius spiritus immundi, qui est serpens malus ; Abel 
vero fuit filius Adami; et propterea quod venit de 
parte angeli mortis, ideo interfecit fratrem suum.”’--- 
M.]. The verb σφάζειν denotes cultro jugulum 
aperire ut sanguis effiuat, then to kill, in sacrifice, 
as the martyrs were slain by the ungodly. Rey. 
v. 6; vi. 4, 9; xviii. 24. Hence the word does 
not warrant the inference that the knife was the 
instrument of the murder (Piscator), but rather 
denotes that the death of Abel was martyrdom 
inflicted by an ungodly hand, or finely intimates 
that Cain, in his hatred, offered a sacrifice to his 
God, the devil. The next clause, at all events 
gives prominence to the diabolical character of 
Cain’s deed, the eager question ‘‘And wherefore 
slew he him?”’ being promptly answered thus: 
“Because his works were wicked, but his 
brother's righteous. Τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν 
answers to ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν, and denotes Cain’s 
whole manner of life” (Spener), of which the mur- 
der of his brother was one form of expression, his 
whole manner of life as well as this specific ex- 
hibition of it being identical as to cause and 
origin—namely the devil. For if the wicked 
one had not influenced Cain’s whole manner of 
life and if that had not been wholly wicked, he 
would not and could not have committed this 
specific act of fratricide. The term πονηρὸς, as 
distinguished from κακός is very significant. o- 
νηρὸς, from πονεῖν or πόνος, denotes toil or hard- 
ship (and is opposed to χρηστός, good, honest, 
useful, friendly, serviceable) and then malignity, 
malignus; κακός, bad, malus, is the opposite of 
ἀγαϑός, good and yaluable. Rev. xvi. 2; Sir. 
xxx 4: Matthe yine 11. ὑσὶ 95: vs {7 7 Luke 
ΧΙ. 35; 3 Jno. 10.ὡ. The inwardly evil nature 
is κακόν, that which is inimical, hurtful and dis- 
pleasing to others is πονηρόν. Ὁ πονηρὸς i8 the 
most suitable term to describe the nature of Sa- 
tan, the enemy of God, His kingdom and His 
people, as well as the works of the devil’s child- 
ren. The additional clause τὰ dé τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ 
αὐτοῦ δίκαια the context requires us to refer to 
ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ εἶναι, as pointing out that the piety 
and the walk of the children of God exactly an- 
swering to the law of God are loathsome to the 
anti-divine world. That devilishness continues 


still Jno. iii. 19; vil. 7; xvii. 14. Hence the 
monition: 
Ver. 18. Marvel not, brethren, if the 


world hateth you.—The same idea is already 
expressed in v. 1 (διὰ τοῦτο) ; Cain is the type of 
the κόσμος (ch. ii. 15-17). ‘‘Magis esset mirabile, 
gi diligerent eos.”” (Didymus). The address ἀδελ- 
déoi in this connection exerts a beneficial in- 
fluence: John expresses his love of those whom 


the world hates and this expression contains a 
ground of their rejoicing and conveys to them 
the sweet consolation of the fellowship of love. 
The particle εἰ is and remains—7f; if it had been 
the Apostle’s object to describe the hatred of 
the world as actually present, he might have used 
ὅτε; but he signifies by εἰ that the readers col- 
lectively or individuals at the time being, will 
not in the end have to endure hatred; but the 
Indicative μισεῖ denotes that the case will doubt- 
less arise. So Mark. xv. 44 (Vulgate falsely: 
si gam odisset); Acts. xxvi. 8; Winer, Grammar 
p. 307; Kiihner, ii. 480 sq. Hence Sander, who 
makes ei—dti, 8. Schmidt who makes it—etiams?, 
and Ebrard who explains—if ever the case oc- 
curs, are in the wrong, for the reference is to a 
necessary condition. [‘‘Hi denotes neither a 
doubt nor only a possibility, for it is not only 
possible but from the nature of the case necessary, 
that the world hates the children of God; only 
the form of the sentence is hypothetical, not the 
thought it expresses. Cf. Jno. xy. 18.” Huther. 
—M.]. 

apace of the Antitheses: Love and Life, 
Hatred and Death; vv. 14, 15. 

Ver.14. We Know.—In ἡμεῖς John includes 
himself among those he had just called ἀδελφοὶ 
and expresses their confident assurance, the world 
andits hatred notwithstanding, which is and ought 
to be a source of strength and consolation. The 
object affirmed in the sequel shows that the refer- 
ence is to the experience of believers, of the chil- 
dren of God, and not to the Apostles only, (Lyra) 
or that it is only the conclusion drawn on the 
ground. of a good conscience, (Estius). 

That we have passed over out of Death 
into Life.—The Prefect μεταβεβήκαμεν signifies 
an action of the past or the past of an action still 
continuing in the present, in the condition that 
has been effected: we are those who have passed 
over, Winer, Grammar, p. 288, 299. The Perfect 
must not be taken per enallaggn, for the Future 
(Schlichting) or the Present (Didymus, Oecum- 
enius), or the verb must not be construed — jus or 
spem habere ad vitam (Grotius, Carpzov). Cf. Jno. 
vy. 24: ὁ πιστεύων---μετεβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ ϑανάτου εἰς 
τὴν ζωὴν. Of course ἐκ τοῦ ϑανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωὴν 
cannot be taken physically but spiritually, but it 
must be taken as a real fact; it ᾿ἰβεεεκγεγεννῆσθαι 
ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ch. ii. 29: for ἡ ζωὴ is the real life, 
divine, eternal life (ch. i. 1, 2; ii. 17, 25),—the 
φῶς and the ἀλήθεια (ch. i. 5; 11. 21, 22) of which 
the children of God are partakers; the ϑάνα- 
toc is the opposite of this life,—the σκοτία and 
the ψεῦδος, all of which belong to the ἐκ τοῦ 
διαβόλου. The Apostle, therefore, does not speak 
of a sentiment (Paulus) or caligo, infelicitas mo- 
ralis (Semler), but of relations and conditions, of 
regeneration, of the new life of the reconciled 
child of God. This implies that those who have 
not yet passed over, are still or will be ἐν τῷ 
ϑανάτῳ before this transition into life in Christ; 
hence there is not the faintest colour for the as- 
sertion of Hilgenfeld, that the Apostle did share 
the gnostic view of the original metaphysical 
difference of men. 

Because we love the brethren.—From 
this conduct we may know that relation, from 
these acts of brotherly love that state of adop- 
tion by God. Hence the former is the first and 


116 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


this the second and it is false to consider brotherly 
love as the cause of regeneration or even as a 
part of justification in order to complete it, and 
as conditio gratiose a Deo requisita, as do the R. 
Catholics (Estius, Lyra) and the Pelagians (Epis- 
copius). Brotherly love is only the condition of 

_ the certainty of the knowledge that we are jus- 
tified and the children of God, and not the con- 
dition of this new lifeitself. [ζωή and ἀγάπῃ are 
really one and the same thing with this difference 
that Cw# is the state and ἀγάπη the activity of the 
believer; from this blissful, eternal life groweth 
love, and love in its turn worketh happiness and 
eternal life; hence the Apostle adds—(Huther)— 
ΜΊ. 

bre that loveth not, abideth in death.— 
As usual (ch. i. 8, sqq., il. 22, sqq.), the negative 
is added in a concise, pregnant form. [See note 
11 in Appar. Critic—M]. The statement is 
quite general ‘‘he that loveth not,”’ without speci- 
fying the object, viz. the brother. The force of 
the Present μένει should be retained. To be in 
death is connected, as something permanent, with 
not loving. They are one in the other, yet not 
so that the not loving is the cause of the abiding 
in death, but, as is manifest from the context, so 
that we may know the abiding in death from the 
not loving. [The two are identical. Besser, 
‘Where hatred is there is death, where love is 
there is life; yes, love is life itself.’””—M. ]. 

Ver. 15. Hvery one that hateth his bro- 
ther is a man-killer.—Ildc denotes the univer- 
sal application of this thought. Not loving is 
described as equal to hating one’s brother. [Not 
to love—to hate.-—M.]; ‘pure indifference is 
impossible to the living spirit of man” (Huther). 
Luther rightly observes: Nova sententia corammun- 
do, quod non diligere sit occidere.’’ Bengel: ““ Omne 
odium est conatus contra vitam; at vita vitam non in- 
sectatur ; quiodit fratrem, aut illum aut se ipsum vult 
occidere.”” Lyra (odisse pejus quam non diligere.’’), 
Schlichting (‘‘Qui non amat, nec bene vult nec 
male; qui vero odit, male vult’’), and others are 
wrong. Not loving is only the state of quiescence 
exhibited in acts of hatred. According to our 
Lord’s exposition of the fifth commandment (Matth. 
v. 21-26) he is an ἀνθρωποκτόνος that hateth his 
brother. ‘Nam quem odimus, vellemus periisse”’ 
(Calvin); hatred is not only a beginning or cause 
of murder, but a murder in heart, be it a wish, 
a thought or a purpose or only the passion which 
afflicts the brother’s life without thinking of his 
death. ‘‘Latro es, antequam inquines manum” 
(Seneca). Here is evidently a reference to Cain, 
yv. 12; the case of Cain shows plainly how hatred 
of one’s brother and homicide go together. The 
word ἀνθρωποκτόνος, only here and Jno. viii. 44, 
in this place applies to Cain who slew Abel, his 
brother, in the Gospel to Satan who destroyed, 
murdered Adam. Notwithstanding this differ- 
ence, the two passages are connected with each 
other, the one shedding light on the other. Cf. 
Lange on John viii. 44; Vol. IV. p. 244 sq.— 
The devil, having seduced Eve, and Adam through 
her to sin, to the transgression of the divine law 
of which death was the penalty fixed by God.— 
Sin causing mortality is itself a kind of dying, 
the fall or falling into death [German: The fall 
of sin, ἡ. 6. the fall, a fall of death.—M_], and sin, 
born of lust, when it is finished, bringeth forth 


death (Jas.i.15); the first sin was a falling from 
the life created (out) of God into death threat- 
ened as a punishment. Thus Satan became the 
murderer of Adam and Eve in the strictest sense 
of the word (Wisd. i. 11-13; ii. 23, 24). With 
the entrance of sin, moreover, there died in Eve 
the love of her husband whom she had seduced, 
and in Adam the love of his wife whom he ac- 
cused to God and on whom he laid the guilt. 
There hatred and death are again together. In 
Cain also there was the hatred of his brother 
united with the murder of his brother, whereby 
he showed that he was ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου. Cf. Stier, 
Reden Jesu, Vol. IV. 414 sqq. 

And ye know that no man-killer hath 
eternal life abiding in him.—This concludes 
the thought: μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν Vv. 106 led the 
Apostle to speak of μὴ ἀγαπῶν v. 14, then of 
μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν v. 15 and in remembrance of 
Cain of ἀνθρωποκτόνος ; he first said οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ 
τοῦ ϑεοῦ vy. 106 μένει ἐν ϑάνατῳ, but here οὐχ ἔχει 
ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν αὐτῷ μένουσαν. Before he said, he 
is in death, but now, in him is not eternal life, 
consequently death is in him. The Apostle de- 
nies that he ‘‘ possesses permanently and fully ” 
(Liicke) eternal life and thus denotes the ‘ per- 
manent state of death” (Diisterdieck) of him that 
hates and kills his brother. The Present ἔχει has 
respect to this present life; it is not habebit (a La- 
pide). Hence ζωὴ αἰώνιος not the future glory (a 
Lapide, Bede and others). Mévovoay certainly 
intimates the existence of eternal life, of bap- 
tism, etc., out of or in the word of God by means 
of Christian instruction and the Christian family- 
discipline; for the Apostle speaks of and to 
Christians. But even such gifts of God are con- 
sumed by hatred abiding; hence he loses entirely 
the possession of eternal life, so that nothing 
thereof abideth in him; μένουσαν is therefore not 
an intensified to be (Huther), nor must the want 
of the Article be pressed as if the reference were 
only to powers of the future world (Ebrard). 
This the Apostle lays down as an undeniable 
fact of Christian experience and consciousness 
(oidare); hence they know it not from the fifth 
commandment (S. Schmidt) or from the Old Tes- 
tament with its death-penalty in the case of mur- 
derers, spiritually interpreted (Grotius, Liicke). 

Description of brotherly love, vy. 16-18. 

Ver. 16. Hereby have we known love 
that He laid down His life for us.—S. 
Schmidt: ‘Ne quis vel se ipsum decipiat, vel ab 
aliis decipiatur, exponendum etiam erit, que sit vera 
et Christiana caritas.” First after the example of 
Christ. On ἐν τούτῳ οἵ. on ch. ii. 8; on ἐκεῖνος, 
vy. 3, 7; ii. 6; éyvdxayerv =cognitum habemus. 
Τὴν ἀγάπην should be taken in a general sense 
without any further qualification: Jove-—Bengel: 
‘‘Amoris natura.’ In Christ may be known love, 
the being and nature of love. Hence we must 
not supply τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Carpzov and others), or 
tov ϑεοῦ (Grotius, Caloy, Spener, al.); the Vul- 
gate (amorem Dei) constrains the Romanists to do 
so. Ebrard’s explanation is rather forced: ‘we 
have known love as consisting in this,” as if we 
had ἐν τούτῳ οὖσαν, and this were described in 
the following ὅτε as the predicate and as if ἐγνώ- 
καμὲεν had only an introductory and secondary 
sense. Both the form (the position of the words) 
and the thought (to give His life—love) render 


CHAP. III. 10-18. 


117 


see. οὐ νης a aN RO εξ βον ες. {ρον τι ϑονο ες τ πέονου τος πεϑξες 


that exposition untenable. The point is that 
whereby love is known: τὴν ψυχὴν τιθέναι (Jno. 
xy. 13; cf. x. 11, 15, 17, 18; xiii. 37, 88)=vitam 
ponere (Cicero ad Fam. ix. 24); this is the highest 
proof of love; for love imparts her very best, her 
most precious goods, παραδοῦναι the ψυχή or 
ἑαυτόν (Gal. ii. 20; Eph. v. 2); this makes Christ 
the object of the Father’s love (Jno. x. 17). The 
context required here ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, for our protec- 
tion; literally over us, who had fallen, were 
wounded, in danger of perishing from our wounds 
or in the hands of enemies, fighting against the 
enemies, protecting us, becoming our substitute 
and assuming the fight for us: hence it is not 
exactly identical with ἀντὶ, and yet the two pre- 
positions touch each other in thought ‘in in- 
dissoluble correlation ’’ (Diisterdieck) ef. ch. ii. 2. 


And we ought to lay down our lives 
for the brethren.—From the act of Christ's 
love for us springs a duty towards our brethren, 
incumbent on us (d¢eiAouev); the thought is si- 
milar to ch. ii. 8, 6. The example of Christ must 
not be without corresponding works on our part 
(ch. iii. 8, 7). The essential union of believers 
to Christ must exhibit itself in the real moulding 
of their life after the pattern of Christ, in the use 
of the imparted gifts and the solution of the task 
assigned to us by the bestowal of that gift. Cf. 
Jno. xiii. 84; xv. 12,18; xxi. 18, 19; Rom. xyi. 
3, 4. 


Ver. 17. But whoso has the world’s 
goods (sustenance of life). 

By the adversative dé ‘‘ John denotes the pro- 
gress from the greater, which is justly insisted 
upon, to the less, the non-performance of which, 
therefore, appears as a correspondingly greater 
violation of the rule just laid down.” (Diister- 
dieck), Ὅς δ᾽ ἂν makes the sentence quite general. 
The proverb quoted by Grotius: “βίος βίου 
δεόμενος οὐκ ἔστι βίος’ gives the double 
sense of life, and the necessaries of life, or the 
means of sustaining life. Cf. Mark xii. 44 (Luke 
xxi. 4); Luke viii. 45; xv. 80. Col. v. 12. Beza: 
“res mundane,” ‘des biens de ce monde.” The 
Genitive τοῦ κόσμου simply points to the sphere 
to which the βίος belongs, and, according to ch. 
ii. 17, denotes the profane and worthless charac- 
ter of these goods, as contrasted with the eternal 
love and the eternal life in Christ. Βίος τοῦ 
κόσμου is the antithesis of ζωὴ αἰώνιος ; the Chris- 
tian shares the latter with Christ, the former 
with the world. The reference is not to uncom- 
mon wealth, but rather to any kind of property 
(ἔχῃ, emphatically in anteposition), though it be 
in limited circumstances, a mere mite, or bread 
and potatoes. He that hath the means to give 
and 


Seeth his brother have need.—%ewpet 
pictorially describes the attitude and activity of 
the spectator; it is not a hasty look, but perma- 
nent looking on and into it (Matth. xxvii. 85; 
Mark xv. 40, 47; xii. 41; Luke xxi. 6; xxiii. 
85 Jno. ii. 23; vi. 19, 62; vii. 8; ix. 8; x. ie 
xiv. 17; xvi. 10, 16); he has it before him like a 
picture which he contemplates with calmness and 
attention, τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχοντα. On 
the expression and the thought οἵ. Eph. iv. 28; 
Mark ii. 25: Acts ii. 45; iv. 85; xx. 34; xxviii. 


10; Phil. iv. 6. [He beholds the brother’s need 
with unmoved eye—M. ]. 

And shutteth up his bowels [inwards] 
from Him.—After the analogy of the Hebrew 
DIT), σπλάγχνα is=xapdia, Prov. xii. 10 and 
very often in the New Testament. Bengel: ‘‘Cum 
visceribus clauditur vel aperitur res familiaris. As- 
pectus miserorum corda spectatorum illico pulsat vel 
etiam aperit.”” The heart ought to open itself in 
compassion and sympathy and move and open 
the hand to communicate; but it is under the 
aggravating circumstances of his haying the 
means and beholding his brother’s need that he 
shutteth up his heart and turns away from him 
(ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ). The same pregnancy of thought oc- 
curs at ch. ii. 28. A similar use of κρύπτειν ἀπὸ 
may be seen at Luke xix. 42; Jno. xii. 56 ὁ. 
Hence we need neither supply ἀποστρεφόμενος 
(Carpzov), nor and==coram (Socinus). [This 
was the case of Dives. He saw Lazarus flung at 
his gate, Lazarus desiring to be fed with the 
crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table, but 
he desired in vain; Dives saw him lie in misery; 
the dogs had pity and sympathized with the poor 
man, but Dives, who fared sumptuously every day, 
looked with unpitying eye on his brother’s dis- 
tress; he saw in him a beggar, not a brother. See 
Augustine, Serm. 178, ὁ. 8, and Massillon’s beau- 
tiful Lent Sermon on this subject.—M.]—The 
negative is emphatically expressed with an im- 
plied paracletical inference in the interrogative 
sentence : 

How abideth the love of God in him ?— 
A similar construction may be seen ch. iv. 20; 
Jno. iii. 12; v.47. The substance of the ques- 
tion answers to v.15: οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν 
αὐτῷ μένουσαι", where eternal life not abiding and 
even not being in him is inferred from the non- 
existence of brotherly love, while here the non- 
existence of the love of God is inferred from the 
same premises. ᾿Αγάπη τοῦ ϑεοῦ is our love to 
God and indicates the motion of eternal life to its 
fountain, as in ch. ii. 5. This love to God does 
not abide, where it does not become operative 
and preserve its vitality in the active exhibition 
of brotherly love. Hence it is neither God's 
love to us (Caloy), nor the love prescribed by God 
(Socinus, Grotius), nor the love which answers 
to that of God and Christ (5. Schmidt). 

Final exhortation. v. 18. 

Ver. 18. Little children, let us not love 
[German: that we do not love] in word, nor 
with the tongue, but in deed and in 
truth.—The affecting address, τέκνια, denotes at 
once the geniality and zeal of John; his earnest- 
ness is brought out in the rapid, hortatory, all- 
embracing expression: μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν. The four 
substantives occur in pairs and as correlates. 
First: λόγῳ and τῇ- γλώσσῃ to describe false love ; 
then: ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ and (ἐν) ἀληθείᾳ. It is important 
to note that the first pair in the Dative indicates 
only the means by which love is or becomes ope- 
rative, while the preposition ἐν which by the co- 
pula καὶ belongs also to ἀληθείᾳ denotes the cle- 
ment wherein it moves (Jno. iv. 24). The first 
pair simply denotes the outwardness of a love 
which only makes use of words and the tongue, 
while the contrast indicates that it is destitute of 
deed and truth, that it is of real activity and in- 


118 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


ward heartiness which are the characteristics of 
true love. The Apostle accordingly annexes to 
λόγος, the word, which possibly might announce 
or accompany the deed, the emphatic μηδὲ τῇ 
γλώσσῃ, the Article serving the purpose ‘“‘of ren- 
dering the expression more conspicuous” (Liicke) ; 
the tongue, ‘‘as the member appointed to utter the 
word” (Huther); so that love is not simply the 
word which might flow from the heart and be 
the instrument of its application, but stops with 
the tongue, the means and sole instrument of the 
word which does not proceed from the heart. 
Therefore λόγῳ is contrasted with ἐν ἔργῳ and τῇ 
γλώσσῃ with ἐν ἀληθείᾳ.----ἰ Ἔργον and λόγος fre- 
quently connected together, as in Luke xxiv. 19; 
Acts vii. 22; sometimes λόγος and δύναμις (1 Cor. 
iv. 19, 20), or λόγος and δύναμις καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον 
καὶ TAnpogopia (1 Thess. i. 5) are placed in oppo- 
sition. Bengel: ‘*Sermone otioso, lingua simu- 
lante.” Lyra says excellently: ‘Verbo, facto 
nihil; lingua fallaci; hie amor non solum, fictitius 
et vanus, sed etiam proditorius.”’ Ti) γλώσσῃ denotes 
‘the hollow nothingness,” ‘‘the purely outward 
babble which without inward truth produces 
only a hypocritical show” (Diisterdieck). Hence 
we need not supply μόνον to λόγῳ (Bede, Socinus, 
Sander and others); and Grotius isalso wrong who 
chiastically [i e. crosswise—M.] opposes: λόγῳ 
and ἀληθείᾳ, γλώσσῃ ἔργῳ, thus: ‘*Verbo amat qui 
predicat ase diligi proximum, non autem vere diligit ; 
lingua diligit qui egenti dat bona verba.”’ Nor is 
Huther right, who takes τῇ γλώσσῃ and ἀληθείᾳ as 
epexegetical additions without introducing a dif- 
ference to λόγῳ and ἔργῳ respectively, as if the 
two words of each member expressed-only one 
idea [He says, to express the idea mathemati- 
cally, that λόγῳ : yAéoon=év ἔργῳ: μι ἀληθείᾳ. 
--Μ]Ί. Compare ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ 2 ὅπο. 1.; 8 
Jno. 1, and Jas. ii. 15, 16. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. All the doings (ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην v. 106, 
ἔργα δίκαια and ἔργα πονηρὰ v. 12) and all the dis- 
positions (ἀγαπῶν vy. 10b and y. 14, ὁ μισῶν v. 15) 
of men points to a deeper ground, a fellowship 
with God or with Satan which is not discernible 
per se, neither to others nor to the respective 
persons themselves, but discernible by their dis- 
position and doing. 

2. The grossest transgression, e. g. the fratri- 
cide of Cain, is never alone, but exhibits itself as 
one of many, as one of a greater complex of mani- 
fold transgressions and plainly indicates, that 
matters must be bad in other respects, because 
otherwise this would not have happened (vy. 12). 

8. Like attracts like, unlike repels unlike: 
love and antipathy arereciprocal. The Christian 
need not be surprised that the world from which 
he has separated himself, has turned away and 
remains alienated from him, dislikes and hates 
him; itis just so with himself, with this dif- 
ference, that the world hates to persecute and 
destroy, whereas the Christian strives to improve 
and to overcome. 

4. Before it can be said: μεταβεβήκαμεν ἐκ 
τοῦ Savdrov (v. 14), we are ἐν τῷ ϑανάτῳ, ἐκ τοῦ 
πονηροῦ. Consequently: 

1. Before such a stepping forth has taken 
place and without it, no one is a child of God. 


2. Such stepping forth is indispensable in the 
case of any and every one who desires to become 
a child of God. 

8. It is possible to all who are called to be- 
come the children of God. 

4. The children of God and the children of 
the world are perfectly alike in kind and nature 
before the difference connected with such transi- 
tion sets in. 

5. Consider that those who are not yet breth- 
ren, may and shall become brethren as well as 
thou.—Indeed, it is not said here how it comes 
to pass, but it is plainly stated and may be seen 
at Jno. v. 24, a passage to which the Apostle 
unmistakably refers here, and from which may 
be inferred what is said here and well expressed 
by Scholiast 11.: τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ δεξάμενοι, of 
course ἐν πίστει. But we must not by any means 
say with the Roman Catholics that although faith 
produces the beginning of our justification before 
God, yet the love to God and to our neighbour in- 
creases the same. This love is simply the sign 
and mark of recognition that our justification 
has taken place, that we are justified. Augus- 
tine accordingly says very correctly: ‘ Redeat 
unus quisque ad cor suum; si ibi invenerit caritatem 
Sraternam, securus sit—jam in dextera est.” 

5. The principle affirmed at v. 16 asa duty 
(ὀφείλομεν) with reference to the example of 
Christ that we also should lay down our lives, is a 
general one. We must not regard it with the 
Roman Catholics as a counsel (consilium), but 
view and observe it with Evangelical Christians 
asa precept (preceptum). It applies not only to 
priests or saints, but to all Christians: ‘ Ministri 
verbi non debent fugere in periculo pestis’? (Luther) ; 
neither physicians in case of a pestilence, nor 
parents and brothers and sisters, nor the govern- 
ment in seasons of insurrection, nor soldiers in 
war, in the fight, before a battle, nor a mother 
when she has to nurse her child, nor a man 
when duty calls. This saying, moreover, must 
not be treated casuistically after the manner of 
Socinus, who thinks a Christian ought to die for 
a non-Christian if thereby his soul may be sayed, 
or if the preservation of a brother is more neces- 
sary to the common weal than his own; or after 
that of Ammon (Sittenlehre 3, 24 sq.) be set aside, 
who thinks it right that in common danger of 
shipwreck, fire or self-defence, men are justified 
to kill others if they cannot save their own life 
in any other way. Diisterdieck rightly observes: 
‘Concrete directions respecting the practical ap- 
plication of the principle can only be given in 
the connection of a complete system of Ethies in 
which especially the duties of Christian self-pre- 
servation and the virtues of Christian prudence 
and simplicity as well as those of Christian self- 
denial and Christian courage must be exhibited 
not as limitations, but as sacred ordinances of 
the fully valid evangelical principle as described 
by St. John.” As St. Paul says 1 Cor. iii. 22: 
πάντα ὑμῶν éoriw—eite ζωὴ εἴτε ϑάνατος and at 
Phil. i. 21 68}18: τὸ ἀποϑανεῖν κέρδος, so the giving 
up of one’s own life in the calling and for the 
love of Christ is an ἀποϑανεῖν τῷ κυρίῳ (Rom. xiv. 
8). Cf. Matth. x. 89; xvi. 25.— 

6. The duty of beneficence is universal; it re- 
lates as much to the rich as to the poor; it is im- 
material whether a man has much or little of the 


CHAP. III. 10-18. 119 


βίος τοῦ κόσμου. The having much or little deter- | brother. This applies primarily to the servants 
mines the giving with or without self-denial, with | of the Church but it applies also to many others. 
or without deprivation, consequently the giving | Cain did not hate Abel because of his herds, 
with ease or with difficulty. But nothing is said | for he had his fair fields; or because of his 
here on that head or on the situation of the ne-| parent’s love, for he was his mother’s pride; or 
cessitous, his greater or lesser need, which may be | because of personal beauty or any outward, tem- 
very extraordinary; nor is any thing said of the | poral good; but he hated him because of his 
worthiness or unworthiness of the necessitous. | piety, on account of the favour he found before 
But the remark of Luther has a very important | God.—Cain [ΠΡ a lance a spear, a weapon.— 

bearing on the care of our parochial poor; he | ‘ Kad 

says: ‘“‘Vult nos de nostro largiri; non de alieno M.], called by Eve in feminine rashness her 

aut communi, sicut stulti Anabaptiste faciunt, qui | Weapon, and in maternal vanity favoured and 

tollunt proprietatem rerum, sine qua non possunt | Spoiled by her, made his offering of anything he 

respublice consistere.” Private charity, even per- | found without any particular discrimination as 

sonal charity, is here distinctly referred to. In | to its quality, while Abel, disregarded and neg- 

this connection it must be supposed as ranged lected, carefully selected the best of the best and 

under the jifth commandment.—Its opposite is | presented it as an offering to his God.—Thou art 

Stoicism which includes also compassion among | able to take the life of thy brother’s body but in 

the passions to be left off: σοὶ μὴ ὀργὴν εἶναι, μὴ doing so thou forfeitest thy own immortal life ; 

μῆνιν, μὴ φθόνον, μὴ ἔλεον. thou becomest a man-killer in respect of thy 

7. We must not think lightly of the word and | brother’s body, but in respect of thyself, a suicide, 
its instrument, the tongue. But as the mouth- | even a suicide of thy soul; depriving thy brother 
work of hypocrisy is hateful to the Lord (Matth. | of his bodily, earthly life, thou deprivest thyself 
vi. 5), so the mouth-work of brotherly love is| οὗ thy spiritual, eternal life.—Three difficult 
equally hateful to John, since neither the word | questions: 1. Canst thou hate those whom God 
nor the tongue is in the service of the love of | loves? 2. Darest thou shorten or waste the term 
the heart and speaks or is spoken separate from | Of grace which God accords? 8. Wilt thou cast 
the heart and contrary to the life in the heart. | from thee the gift of God in thee, eternal life seg 
The friendly utterance of the mouth must and Threefold exhibition of brotherly love: 1. Laying 
ought to be in the case of Christians the friendly down one’s life for the brethren at duty’s call. 2. 
utterance of the heart. Otherwise it is only a ; Communication of one’s possessions to the needy 
μόρφωσις τῆς εὐσεβείας without the δύναμις (2 Tim. brethren. 3. Friendly and sincere readiness to. 
iii. 5). For the contrary see, Matth. xii. 34,35; | oblige and aid the brethren.—Three things thou 
Rom. x. 8-10. hast for the benefit of others: Body and life, 

8. These concrete particulars of the laying | g00ds and property, hand and heart. 
down of our lives, of communicating the suste- |. EPIstTLE to Droenetus [cap. vi] :—As the soul 
nance of life and of the love to our brother in| 18 in the body, so are Christians in the world. 
deed and in truth plainly and pathetically indi- | The soul dwells in the body but is not of the 
cate that regeneration and adoption by God, (ch. body; so Christians also dwell Mm the world, but 
ii. 29) if it 15 ἃ reality, penetrates, as the central | are not of the world. _ The invisible soul is, as it 
life-power the whole periphery of life, so that we | Were, keeping guard in the visible body ; this 1s 
read not only of a εὐσέβεια but of εὐσέβειαι, 2 Pet. | the mark of Christians as long as they remain in 
ili. 11 and even of the ϑεοσέβεια Sv ἔργων ἀγαθῶν the world: their piety 1s invisible. The flesh 
(1 Tim. ii. 10). For the diversity of good works hates and wars against the soul, which (the soul) 
induced by the faith of the heart makes it evident | is, however, by no means wronged [ἀδικομμένηςε- 
to others that the Christian sonship is not a show, | “fecta injuria.—M.] by it because it (the soul) 
but power and truth; his conduct towards the | forbids the indulgence of the lusts of the flesh; 
brethren reveals his relation to God the Father | 80 the world hates the Christians, although they 
and this relation produces such conduct. by no means wrong it but only resist the lusts of 

[The Apostle’s declaration that every one that | the world. The soul loves the flesh and the 
hateth his brother is a murderer or man-killer | Members which hate it; so also Christians love 
embodies the well known ethical principle that | their enemies. [Cf. Matth. v. 44.—M.] 
the moral quality of an action does not belong to Basruius:—Because the devil’s hatred cannot 
the outward act, nor to the conception of it, nor reach God, he seeks to hurt and destroy man, 
to the resolution to carry it into effect, but to the image of God. 
the intention. Hatred in St. John’s view, is mur- Aveustine:—The Christian lives, but, as it 
der committed in intention, and he that cherishes | Were, in winter; the root is alive but the boughs 
hatred towards his brother stands convicted of | look dry; the living pith and marrow is within, 
murder before God and at the bar of his own 224 within are hidden the leaves and the fruits 
conscience.—M. ] —but they wait for summer. 

AMBROSE:—‘‘ Nemo dicat proprium, quod com~ 
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. mune est; esurientium panis est, quem tu detines; 
nudorum indumentum est, quod tu recludis.” 

The twofold piety of a child of "God; 1. Obe- LurHer:—-The world is a den of murderers, 
dience to the Father; 2. Love of the brethren.— subject to the devil. Would we live on earth we 
Like the elder brother thou mightest stay with [ ought to be satisfied with being guests therein 
the Father and work in His field, be envious of | and putting up at an inn whose host is a roguish 
and take offence at the friendly reception accorded | host, whose house bears the sign and title over 
to the younger son by the Father in the parable | the door: ‘Murder and lie.” For Christ Himself 
of the prodigal (Luke xvi). Cain was the elder | did affix such a sign and title to his house right 


eee 


120 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


over the door by saying that He is a murderer and 
aliar. A murderer to destroy the body; a liar 
to seduce the soul. 

᾿ς Srarxe:—Because God is Love and loves those 
who are born of Him, therefore love of the breth- 
ren is also the mark of the regenerate.—Art thou 
tempted with the thought that thou art without 
the grace of God, without the adoption, without sal- 
vation: be of good courage! If thou really and 
heartily lovest the godly, yea even the wicked and 
thy foes, thou mayest be quite sure that all these 
blessings are thy own.—Good Christian, whenever 
thou readest and hearest some portion of Divine 
truth, consider well the purpose of God in an- 
nouncing it and shape thy course accordingly.— 
Contrary dispositions are not uncommon among 
actual brothers; the one may be good, the other 
bad, the one may be sayed, the other damned.— 
The power of Satan over those children is so 
great that he changes even natural love into 
hatred.—Mad features of the ungodly! they 
cannot bear that the works of others are good— 
why? What is it that envy will not do? They 
also do not like it because it puts them to shame 
and sometimes becomes the means of their pun- 
ishment.—Happy state of believers as contrasted 
with that of unbelievers! The former truly live, 
the latter are dead though their body is alive. 
We mourn for the dead—how much more ought 
we to mourn for the ungodly, for they are spirit- 
ually dead, before they die, and if they die, they 
fall into eternal death.—God has not only con- 
nected the hand but also the mouth and the heart 
with the fifth commandment.—Hatred is not a 
trifling sin of infirmity compatible with a man’s 
continuing in a state of grace, but so great a sin 
as to entail the loss of eternal life, which is irre- 
coverably lost while hatred lasts. He that hates 
is a double murderer, he wants to hurt others 
and deprives himself of eternal life-—To have 
had life does not render us blessed; but he is 
blessed with whom eternal life abides.—It is one 
thing to have this world’s goods and another to 
covet them: the one is the blessing of God, the 
other covetousness.—Poverty is no disgrace: a 
man may be poor and yet be the child of God, the 
brother of Christ and of good Christians.—Doing 
good to the poor is not only incumbent upon the 
rich, possessed of great abundance, but to every 
one who has this world’s goods and is able to 
communicate; even as every one has to work, 
also for this purpose, that he may have some- 
thing to give to the poor.—Love is blind in not 
having respect to the person of the poor, whether 
it be known or unknown, strange or native; but 
it is not blind in taking cognizance of the need 
it is to relieve.—Do not always wait for a poor 
brother’s application, begging, supplication and 
appeal to thy love; many are ashamed to disclose 
their need; but if thou knowest thy brother’s 
case, show pity unasked and joyfully.—If unable 
to do anything else, thou canst love with the 
tongue by words of good counsel and consolation ; 
but see that thy heart be with thy tongue.—The 
greatness of a benefaction does not determine its 
worth before God, nor does its smallness lessen 
it; a great benefaction without sincere love is 
small, even nothing before God; but a small 
benefaction prompted by sincere and hearty love 
is great in God’s sight. 


NEANDER: As Cain hated and slew Abel in 
consequence of the contrast between a godly and 
an ungodly disposition, so the world hates and 
slays the children of God in consequence of the 
same contrariety of disposition. Hence the 
world and the children of God are ever at war 
like love and selfishness: Hence Christians need 
not be surprised, if the world hates them. This 
is to them the stamp of the divine life, the pos- 
session of which renders them the opposite of 
the world. 

Hevusner. Being without love makes men 
like Cain, whose kind is not extinct. The mind 
of Cain is to destroy the hated children of God; 
literary murder also belongs to this head. As to 
its secret, inmost tendency, all hatred aims at 
murder.—The duplicity of mankind was prefig- 
ured in the case of Cain and Abel; this dichotomy 
runs through the whole Bible. Cain is the proto- 
type of the evil and unloving, Abel the prototype 
of Christ. —A Christian Nil admirari, Ps. xxxyvii. 
Hatred and enmity is that which disquiets, vexes, 
excites and disconcerts the natural man most. 
But the Christian is bidden not even to be sur- 
prised at it! He knows the world, is aware of 
what he has to expect of it, he is at peace with 
God, lives a life of introversion, is so well rooted 
and grounded in God, so abundantly satisfied 
with the grace of God, that the world’s hatred 
does not disturb him. God is his fortress: but 
he must not leave that fortress.—Where the 
hatred of the world has not yet fully developed, 
there is most surely a want of decided Chris- 
tianity.—Love displays its most glorious beauty 
under the world’s hatred. The Christian loves 
while the world has no idea of the existence of 
his love.—Formerly this world was extra-Chris- 
tian, but now there is a world on the soil of the 
Christian Church. Is it offensive, hostile, pre- 
sumptuous to speak of this difference? then it is 
the fault of the Bible, of Jesus Christ. We ought 
to hold up a mirror to all: you are either this or 
that. But it would be presumption to refer in- 
dividuals to the class to which they belong, for 
this is the prerogative of God.— Death is the state 
of insensibility and impotence with respect to 
whatever is good and godly, the conscience is 
blunted and without receptivity, the heart is 
dead without any emotion, or interest in religion. 
Life is activity, emotion, a sense for, an impulse 
to and ability for the holy, a work after the will 
of God, a state of holiness, of a walk well-pleasing 
to God. Brotherly love is mentioned as a criterion, 
as a test of life.—Think of hatred as the root 
and beginning of murder. Often a bitter grief is 
to others more deadly and vitally injurious than 
a gross bodily injury.—Distinguish between that 
which passes with men and that which passes 
with God.—Never make room for secret anger: 
or life, the Holy Ghost will depart from thee.— 
The unloving thinks more highly of lifeless, 
worthless metal than of the living man created in 
the image of God.—What can you accomplish 
with the metal? Refresh the weary, comfort 
their hearts and dry their tears! Then you 
transmute stones into bread, earthly treasures 
into heavenly.—The word is only the shadow of 
the deed and by no means an equivalent of love 
or gratitude. (Themistius). 

Besser:—Where hatred is, there is death; 


CHAP. III. 10-18. 


where love is, there is life; yea, love itself is the 
life.—Thus Luther showed that he was willing to 
lay down his life for the brethren when in the 
year 1527 he stayed at Wittenberg with those who 
were stricken with the plague. So the ancient 
historian Eusebius narrates how a pestilence at 
Alexandria brought out the difference between 
the Christians and the pagans. So Hans Egede 
laid down his life when for the sake of the poor 
Greenlanders he exchanged his comfortable parish 
for hunger and cold, for unspeakable toil and 
sufferings; and the coast of Africa, also, lined with 
grave-hills with the seed of the negroes proclaims 
the love which is stronger than death. Would 
that it might be said of the Christians of our time 
what Tacitus said of the Christians, viz.: that they 
are as inflexible concerning their faith, as they 
are ready in the exhibition of mercy.—How can 
he live on God’s compassionating love in whom no 
compassionating love does live? 

On the Epistle for the second Sunday after Trinity, 
1 Jno, iit. 15-18. 

HevBNER, during the siege of Wittenberg, in 
1818, preached on the hatred of the world to 
which Christians are exposed, and said, notwith- 
standing the presence of the French garrison, 
when he came to speak of deserved hatred: the 
hatred is deserved, which visits the tyrant who 
sacrifices thousands and the welfare of thousands 
to his lust of rule. 

The Christian under the hatred of the world. 

1. How dignified is his demeanour in bearing 
it a. with calmness, composure and patience 
(v.13); b. with the consciousness of his innocence, 
his love, as known to God (y. 14); ¢. with the 
hope of being one day justified (v. 2); 2. how 
holily he uses it: a. as a warning against all the 
motions of hatred (vy. 15); Ὁ. as a challenge to 
become more like Christ in love (v. 16); ὁ. as an 
instrument to reconcile the world to himself by 
love (vv. 17, 18). 

Motives of comfort for Christians under the world’s 
hatred. 1, (v.18). They are unknown and mis- 
understood; 2, (v. 14); they become conscious of 
their life; 3. (v. 15); they are encouraged to 
fight against all unlovingness; 4. (v. 16); they 
resemble Christ; 5. (vy. 17); become more and 
more assured of the love of God; 6. (v. 18); they 
hope to gain their enemies over. 

The mind of the Christian and of the world op- 
posed to each other in love and hatred. 1. To hate 
is natural to the world, to love to the Christian (vy. 
13, 14); 2. Hatred destroys, love sacrifices the 
life (vv. 15,16); 8. The world shuts up, the 
Christian opens the heart (vy. 18). 

Whither do we come if the spirit of love leaves us ? 
1. Answer: we come from the fellowship of the 
saints to the fellowship of the world (v. 15), from 
the life of God to spiritual death (v. 14), to vice 
and shame (y. 15), to forfeiting our salvation and 
the fruits of the death of Christ (v. 16).—2. Ap- 
plication: learn the worth of true love (v. 16), 
fizht against every motion of unlovingness (vy. 
17), practise love in deed and in truth (vy. 18). 

The strong warnings given to Christians against 
an unloving mind.—Love appears most beautiful under 
the world’s hatred.—Love, a sign of life.—It is only 
by love that a Christian can know whether he is a 
child of God or regenerate. 1. The truth. 
laying to heart being reminded of this truth. 


| 


121 


F. A. Wotr:—The Apostolical refutation of the 
principal errors prevailing on the subject of Chris- 
tian love: 1. The fate of love, 2. The reign of love, 
3. The value of love, 4. The origin of love. 

Caspari:—Of the nature of true love: 1. Its 
consolation, 2. Its powers, 3. Its purity. 

Kaprr:—How necessary true brotherly love is, 1. 
As a test of our spiritual life; 2. As a condition 
(2) of eternal life.—The Law and the Testimony: 
Of Brotherly Love. 1. Motives. 1. The contrast 
of Cain; 2. Marks of discipleship and regenera- 
tion; 3, The passing away and perdition of the 
hater. II. Marks. 1. Laying down one’s life; 
2. Communication of one’s goods; 3. Love in deed. 

The true life in love and certain death in hatred: 
1. The ground, fruit and nature of the true life; 
2. Certain death in hatred of the brethren, as to 
ground and nature. 

Brotherly love. 1. Who are our brethren? 2. 
How do we love the brethren? 8. What moves us 
to such love? 

How operative is the love which flows from the 
living knowledge of the sacrificing love of Christ! 
1. It takes us from death to life; beloved of God 
in Christ, we love. 2. It alone is able to bear " 
the hatred of the world without ceasing to love 
(Matth. v. 39-42). 3. It is not only love in 
words and with the tongue, but in deed and in 
truth. 

We know that we are born of God, for, 1. The 
world hates us; 2. We love the brethren; 3. We 
hate hatred, but not the hater; 4. We lay down 
our life for the brethren. 

A heart-test of what spirit we are (Luke ix. 55, 
56; Jer. viii. 6). 1. For the satisfaction of the 
righteous who in their love grieve over the world’s 
hatred; 2. For the terror of the ungodly who 
hate their neighbour without fear or anxiety; 
3. for the awakening of the hypocrites who love 
their neighbour only in appearance.—Qwestions 
of Confession. 

[Ienatius:—(ad Smyrm, 6.): ‘Observe those 
who are heterodox with regard to the grace of 
Christ, how contrary they are to the mind of 
God. They have no regard for love,—zepi ἀγά- 
πης ov μέλει avroic—they do not care for the 
widow, or the orphan, or the hungry or the 
thirsty.’’—M. ]. 

[WorpswortH: (on v. 16).—‘‘And we ought to 
lay down our lives for the brethren;” a remarkable 
saying on the duty of Christian martyrdom, It 
was probably suggested by the seductive tenets 
of the false teachers (οἱ πλανῶντες mentioned 1 
Jno. ii. 26; iii. 7), who courted popularity in 
times of persecution; by alleging that provided 
aman had knowledge of the doctrines of Chris- 
tianity as delivered by them, and adopted their 
theories, it was not necessary for him to expose 
himself to any danger in the maintenance of the 
faith, much less to endure martyrdom and to lay 
down his life for the brethren: but that he might 
freely associate with the heathen in their worship, 
and eat things offered to idols. This was particu- 
larly the doctrine of the Stmonians (Origen 6. 
Cels. VI. p. 282; Euseb. 11. 13), and of the Ni- 
colaitans (Rey. ii. 15. Trenzeus I. 29) and of the 
Cerinthians (Philastr. her. c. 36).—Tertullian 
wrote his book called Scorpiace against these no- 


2. The | tions and he refers to this passage in proof of the 


duty of martyrdom, ο. 12.—M. ]. 


122 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


---.--ςς-.ς.-.---ἘἘ--Ἐ SSeS 


[Macknicur: (vv. 14. 15) :—According to the 
Apostle in this place, the surest mark, by which we 
can know our actual state, is to consider whether 
we possess that characteristic disposition towards 
our brethren, which the Christian religion enjoins. 
The high encomiums, passed in this and the fol- 
lowing verse on love to mankind, are not to be so 
understood, as if no virtue but benevolence were 
necessary to complete the Christian character. 
The virtues have all such a connection with each 
other, that they cannot subsist separately. And 
therefore, if one really loves his brethren, he will 
not only be charitable to the poor, but he will be 
just in his dealings, true to his promises, faithful 
in all the trusts committed unto him. In short, 
he will carefully abstain from injuring his 
neighbour in any respect, and will perform every 
duty he owes to him, from a sincere principle of 
piety towards God, whereby his whole conduct 
will be rendered uniformly virtuous.—M. ]. 

[Secker:—If we do a person no harm, yet if 
we wish him harm, St. John has here determined 
the case, ‘‘ Whosoever hateth his brother is a 
murderer.” For indeed, hatred not only leads to 
murder, and too often, when indulged, produces 
it unexpectedly ; but it is always, though per- 
haps for the most part in a lower degree, the 
very spirit of murder in the heart; and it is by 
our hearts that God will judge us.—M. ]. 

[CuaRKE: (onv. 15).—This text has been quoted 
to prove, that no murderer can be saved. This is 
not said in the text; and there have been many 
instances of persons who have been guilty of 
murder, having had deep and genuine repen- 
tance; and who, doubtless, found mercy from His 
hands who prayed for His murderers, ‘Father, 
forgive them, for they know not what they do.” It 
is, however, an awful text for the consideration 
of those who shed human blood on frivolous pre- 
tences; or in those wars which have their origin 
in the worst passions of the human heart. 

(On v. 17).—Here is a dest of this love: if we 
do not divide our bread with the hungry, we cer- 
tainly would not lay down our life for him. 
Whatever love we may pretend to mankind, if we 
are not charitable and benevolent, we give the 
lie to our profession. If we have not bowels of 
compassion, we have not the love of God in us: 
if we shut up our bowels against the poor, we 
shut Christ out of our hearts and ourselves out 
of heaven. 

(On v. 18). There is a good saying in Valeut 
Rubeni, p. 145, iv. on this point: ‘If love consisted 
in word only, then love ceaseth as soon as the word 
is pronounced. Such was the love between Balak 
and Balaam. But, if love consists not in word, 
it cannot be dissolved; such was the love of Abra- 
ham, Isaac, Jacob, and the rest of the patriarchs 
which were before them.’’—M. ]. 

[TRower: (on v. 17).—** Whata picture is here 
brought before us, of a Christian possessed of 
this world’s good, and seeing his brother have 
need; yet turning away his eyes, and hardening 


his heart against the claims of charity, shutting 
up his bowels of compassion from him! How 
unlike Him who, though He was rich, yet for our 
sake became poor, that we through His poverty 
might be rich. May we learn more and more 
that whatever share we enjoy of ‘this world’s 
good,” is intrusted to us as stewards for God; 
and that all pretence of possessing Christian love 
is vain, unless we minister freely to the necessi- 
ties of our brethren what we haye so freely re- 
ceived. Hereby alone can we know that we are 
of the truth, and can assure our hearts before 
Him.”—M.]. 

[StanHoPE :—The good we would do, but can- 
not, shall be rewarded; and the evil, which we 
are disposed to do, though not actually done, 
shall be punished. Hence, if a man keep malice, 
though but in his heart, if he wish or rejoice at 
the misery or harm of his brother, this man is, 
in the eye of God, and of the Gospel dispensation, 
a murderer.—If some sudden change befalls my 
neighbour’s fortunes, the diminution of his honour 
or estate, the blemishing his credit and reputa- 
tion, and I feel a secret pleasure in such calami- 
ties, can it be charity that ties up my tongue 
from bitterness or slander, or my hands from 
invasion and cruelty? No, certainly.—He that 
triumphs in mischief and doth not act it himself; 
he that is fond of and cherisheth a scandal, but 
forbears to raise or spread it; it is not religion, 
but some other consideration, by which even this 
man isrestrained. But alas! how few are there, 
in comparison, who think themselves bound to 
stop here! How few who, while they hold their 
hands from action, make no scruple to give their 
tongues a liberty of speaking ‘‘all words that may 
do hurt,” and so contribute to the disgrace and 
grief of their injured and afflicted brother! and 
if they, with these sharp razors, wound and 
mangle a bleeding reputation, would not the 
same malice unsheath their sword and thrust it 
into his bowels, if their own safety, the fear of 
human laws, or some other prudential considera- 
tion, did not bind their hands, which leaves their 
tongues and thoughts at liberty? For, were 
religion, were the fear and love of God, their 
check, they would prevent the very beginnings 
of malice. This tells us that we must be com- 
passionate and kind; that we must do to every 
man whatsover we would that he should do unto 
us; that but to meditate or delight in evil is a 
sin, and that no instance of goodness should be 
wanting which the circumstances of any brother 
render seasonable for him to receive, and ours 
have put in our power to give; that a design of 
making him uneasy is not one whit less murder- 
ous and guilty, because not prosecuted in tender- 
ness to one’s self, and not to be effected with im- 
punity. Thus God interprets it, and by this rule 
He will proceed with us; for He declares Him- 
self a trier of the heart, and that in our last great 
reckoning, ‘every secret thing shall be brought 
into judgment.’”’—M. ]. 


CHAP. III. 19-24. 


128 


5. The glorious consequences of our adoption by God. 


CuaprTer III. 19-24. 


19 
20 
21 
22 


23 


him. 


all things. 


And! hereby we know? that we are of the truth’, and shall assure‘ our hearts before 
For’ if our heart condemn us*, God" is greater than our heart, and knoweth 
Beloved, if our heart condemn us not®, then haye® we confidence toward 
God. And whatsoever we ask”, we receive of" him, because we keep” his command- 
ments, and do those” things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his com- 


mandment, That we should" “believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love 


24 


one another, as he gave us commandment. 


And he that keepeth his command- 


ments dwelleth® in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in 
us, by’ the Spirit which he hath given us. 


Verse 19. 1 Kai, though wanting in A. B., is found in C. @. K. Sin., many cursives and versions. 
: Y ᾿ y seh 5 
γνωσόμεθα with A. B.C. Sin; γιγνώσκομεν ἃ. K.; another reading is γινώσκομεθα, cognosce- 


mur. [German: We shall know.—M.] 
3 German: “ Out of the truth.”—M.] 


4 German: “And shall perswade our hearts before Him.”—M.] 


Verse 20. 


δ ὅτι, is written by Lachmann 6 τι, only after A, which reads ὅτε ἂν. [German: “because.”—M.] 


6 καταγινώσκῃ is the reading of the best Codd. also of Sinatt; elsewhere καταγινώσκει. 


Tore before μείζων, 
‘“ Because God is greater etc.” —M.] 
Verse 21. 


B. C. G. K. Sin. is well authenticated [and adopted in the German which reads: 


8 καταγινώσκῃ, elsewhere καταγινώσκει, Sin;—xo, is at all events an error of the pen like 


ἔκπροσθεν v.19, ἔσσφαξὲν y.12—Besides A. omits the first, and B.C. the second ἡμῶν, but 
both occur in G. K. Sin; and B. C. testify for the former, A. for the second, 
9 ἔχομεν well supported instead of ἔχει B, ἔχωμεν, habeamus. 


Verse 22. 


fo German: “And whatsoever we may ask.”—M.] 


lan αὐτοῦ A.B.C. Cod. Sin;—rap αὐτοῦ ἃ. K. 
12 τηρῶμεν A. K. Sin. is probably a slip of the pen for τηροῦμεν. 


[D8 καὶ τὰ ἀρεστὰ κ.τ.λ. 


“And do the things, etc.;” the demonstrative pronoun is unnecessary and is 


not used in most of the versions, the German renders “and do the well-pleasing before Him.”—M.] 


Verse 23. 


14 πιστεύσωμεν Β. 6. K.—A.C. Cod. Sin. πιστεύωμεν. 


15 ἡμῖν after ἐντολὴν in Cod. Sin. before or after ἔδωκεν in the best authentic Codd. 
Verse 24. [16 German: “abideth” to be retained to preserve the uniformity.—M. ] 
ΠΊ ἐκ rod mvevuatos—of the Spirit; so German.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Transition and first consequence: the assurance 
of being of the truth. 

Ver. 19a.—And hereby we shall know 
that we are of the truth.—The connection is 
by the copula καὶ; the Future γνωσόμεϑα is occa- 
sioned by the hortatory form of νυ. 18: μὴ aya- 
πῶμεν, the sense being: “Τῇ we love ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ 
ἀληϑείᾳ, we shall know thereby that etc.” (Hu- 
ther); the object of our knowing, ὅτε ἐκ τῆς ἀλη- 
ϑείας ἐσμέν, is defined by what is said in v. 18. 
Thus close is the connection of the Apostle’s 
argument with the preceding section in which he 
treated of obedience to the commandments of 
God and more particularly of brotherly love (v. 
10—y. 18). Ἔν τούτῳ refers to what precedes, 
as in ch. ii. 5b., and not to what follows as in 
ch. ii. 8.—V. 19 is plainly connected with v. 18, 
not with v. 10 (Rickli, de Wette), or v. 14 (Lucke). 
The Future has here the same sense as in Jno. 
vil. 17; viii. 81, 82; xiii. 85, denoting the possi- 
bility of a case which may justly be expected to 
arise. Winer, Grammar, p. 294, sq.—Ek ἀλη- 
ϑείας εἷναι requires to be interpreted like ἐκ ϑεοῦ 
εἶναι, τέκνον ϑεοῦ εἶναι both on account of the force 
of the preposition ἐκ which signifies principium 
vel ortum, and of the pregnant sense which John 
attaches to the word ἀληθεία. It is the truth 
eternal, originating in and springing from God 
revealed in Christ, testified τὸ by the Holy Spirit 
as the Spirit of truth, the real substance of the 
Gospel, and designed to be expressed in the life 
of believers; it comes nearest to the idea of φῶς, 


and we ought therefore to compare the term: 
υἱοὶ φωτός (Jno. xii. 86). Cf. Jno. xviii. 87.—It 
is not covered by ἐκ ϑεοῦ εἶναι, but should be 
combined with it. The truth (out) of God is the 
nature of those who love the brethren and a well 
of life in them.—Hence we must not explain with 
Bede: ‘ex veritate que Deus est” (so also Calvin, 
Rickli and others), or with Calov: ‘‘ex verbo 
veritatis” (so also Spener, Bengel, Licke, de 
Wette), and still less understand with Jach- 
mann “the true religion,” or with Nosselt: ‘ doc- 
trina divina,” or with Semler: ‘‘perfectior vita.” 
These definitions do not explain the idea ἀληθεία. 
Nor must we weaken the force of the preposition 
Ἐκ and explain with Oecumenius: ‘ ἀληθεύειν, 
or with a Lapide: ‘‘veracem esse, veraciter ambu- 
lare,” or with Socinus: ‘‘vere talem esse, ut quis 
se esse se profitetur,” or with Grotius: ‘“‘ congruere 
evangelio.”’ 

Second consequence : 
God, vv. 19. 20. 

Ver. 194. And we shall persuade our 
hearts before Him.—Ile/6ev either to convince 
or to persuade; the object καρδίας ἡμῶν points to 
a difference within the personality, qualified by 
καταγινώσκῃ and hence perceptible. It is an ethi- 
co-religious difference: the accusation and con- 
demnation of our heart against our own person. 
The Apostle designates by καρδία the inmost seat 
of the emotions (Jno. xiv. 1, 27; xvi. 6, 22), the 
source of our actions (ch. xiii. 2), and here also 
the judge within; συνείδησις in John, occurs only 
in the spurious passage ch. viii. 9, but is fre- 
quently used by Paul (Rom. ii. 15; ix. ΤΡ ΠῚ: 
5; 1 Cor. viii. 7; 2 Cor. v.11; Acts xxiv. 16) 


An assured heart before 


124 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


—_— ὁ [ἐ ΠΤ 8’ ῤΠὧββἂβὺβὺ8ββτὦβῥᾷ θ8ᾷ8Ὰ8Ὰ8ὃὉὃΌ΄ἷὖὃὖὃἝὃὖἕἣἵἷ᾽. 


and also at 1 Pet. iii. 16, 21; Heb. xiii. 18. Ori- 
gen cites vy. 21, plainly either as: “ἐὰν μὴ ἡ ovvel- 
δησις καταγινώσκῃ judy,” or as ““ἐὰν ἡ συνείδησις 
ἡμῶν μὴ καταγινώσκῃ." The Greeks take καρδία 
simply for συνείδησις. Although καρδία is more 
comprehensive than συνείδησις, yet the latter is 
contained in the former, viz., conscience is in the 
heart, which we must conceive to be disquieted 
and excited by and with the conscience. The 
connection requires us to construe πείθειν aimed 
at the point ““ μέ desistant condemnare” (Bengel), 
as at Matth. xxviii. 14: πείσομεν αὑτὸν, i. 6., the 
ἡγεμόνα and ἀμερίμνους ποιήσομεν the soldiers on 
guard who had fled on the morning of the resur- 
rection. According to the context and conforma- 
bly to usage πείθειν denotes a pacifying persua- 
sion. The antithesis vy. 21: ἐὰν μὴ καταγινώσκῃ 
—rappyoiav ἔχομεν likewise makes ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ 
-πείσομεν denote to pacify, to quiet as the effect 
of persuasion. Hence Fritsche’s explanation: 
“<flectemus animos—ad amorem ostendendum,” is 
false and wholly repugnant to the context. The 
reference however is not to the last judgment 
when the final decision and separation will take 
place, but rather to the inward transactions, 
which though prophetical of the last judgment, 
precede the same during this our earthly life. 
Accordingly, ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ is not coram illo in 
the last judgment and πείσομεν relates not to eter- 
nity (as Socinus, Liicke, de Wette construe), but 
only coram illo, in His presence, in His light. 
As the accusing heart on the ground of the Di- 
vine word, and in virtue of the impulse of and 
the fellowship with the Holy Spirit is disquieted, 
and the voice of God is heard in the conscience, 
so the heart must be quieted before God, on the 
ground and in virtue of His word and promise 
and in the fellowship with Him, so that the fol- 
lowing words: ‘“‘yeilwv ἐστὶν ὁ ϑεὸς καὶ γινώσκει 
mavra” explain ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ ; imaginings of our 
own spirit and worldly diversions do not promote 
such quieting. Compare Diisterdieck. Hence 
we should construe the Future πείσομεν in coor- 
dination with γνωσόμεθα and so connected with 
καὶ that it is also governed by ἐν τούτῳ, although 
the latter connected zeugmatically with γνωσόμεθα 
denotes thereat, with πείσομεν, thereby; this is the 
more practicable, because ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι in- 
tervenes and completes ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ἀγαπᾷν and 
γνωσόμεθα introduces πείσομεν. It is therefore 
wrong to begin a new sentence with ἔμπροσθεν 
(Paulus, Fritzsche, Ebrard). 

Ver. 20. Because, if the heart condemn 
us, because God is greater than our heart, 
and knoweth all things.—The reading ὅτι 
ἐὰν--ὗτι μείζων is so well established that neither 
a conjecture like that of Stephanus, who pro- 
poses to read ἔτι μείζων, nor the cancelling of the 
second ὅτι, as done by Grotius, warrants us to 
lessen or remove the difficulties which are also 
rather contained in the thought. We have now 
the reason specified that we shall quiet our hearts 
before Him in case our heart should condemn us 
and find a verdict against us. Hence ἐὰν with 
the Subjunctive is perfectly right. Winer, Gram- 
mar, pp. 307, 308.—‘ Καταγινώσκειν stands mid- 
way between κατηγορεῖν, to accuse (Rom. ii. 15), 
which is still accompanied by an ἀπολογεῖν (Rom. 
ii. 15), and κατακρίνειν, to sentence [in a bad 
sense—M ], condemn (Jno. viii. 10 sq.); the lat- 


ter includes the judicial punishment (Jno. viii. 
10; Col. iv.), while καταγινώσκεεν denotes only 
the verdict found against a person accused to 
be followed by the punishment corresponding 
thereto. Cf. Deut. xxv. 1, 2. The term is there- 
fore very significant with respect to the verdict 
found by our own soul against ourself, which is 
more than the mere accusation, because the κατα- 
γινώσκειν implies also the guilt of the person ac- 
cused, so that the condemnation to the punish- 
ment, the κατακρίνειν, may justly be expected” 
(Diisterdieck). In the heart there is not only a 
party, but also a judge; the conscience is a 
court of justice. Hence it denotes here not only 
reprehendere or accuse ( Vulgate, Augustine, Liicke, 
al.). Why the heart finds a verdict against us 
the context indicates ‘“‘in a relative play on the 
words” γνωσόμεϑα---καταγινώσκῃ, exactly like Jno. 
xv. 2, (Diisterdieck). Consequently [it finds the 
verdict against us—M.] that we are not wholly 
of the truth, that we do not perfectly, gladly and 
uninterruptedly love the brethren; for these are 
correlates of extraordinary difference in degree 
up to perfection. The explanation of the Greek 
commentators, who think of y. 18, and that of 
Diisterdieck, who connects it with y. 19, should be 
combined against those of Luther and Ndsselt, 
who think of every defect except that of bro- 
therly love; but every other defect would also 
show itself with respect to brotherly love, and 
render it deficient. Of course, the reference can- 
not be to a complete relapse, to a knowingly and 
grossly repeated case of untruthfulness in love or 
of unloyingness, since the lying words of love 
would have no corresponding deed (Estius, Epis- 
copius, Liicke, al.) though we may and should 
think not only of lesser but also of graver of- 
fences, seeing that the conscience of Christians is 
sufficiently tender and acute to find an adverse 
verdict also with respect to lesser defects of love. 
The repetition of ὅτε before ἐὰν and μείζων is 
not peculiar to this passage but occurs also at 
Eph. ii. 11, 12. Liicke cites an example from 
Xenophon, Anab. 7, 4, 5 and 5, 6,19 remarking, 
however, that while ὅτε in both places signifies 
that, it denotes here ‘‘because.”” The reason of 
the epanalepsis is not the forgetfulness of the 
author, but the importance of the thought which 
allows and requires such a rhetorical emphasis. 
Liicke admits the epanalepsis without hesitation, 
Winer, (Grammar p. 604, note 8,} is undecided, 
Huther hesitates and decides against it, the 
older and many modern commentators (Calvin, 
Wolf, Sander, Diisterdieck) are for it. There is 
hence no reason to read with Bengel, Baumgar- 
ten-Crusius, Lachmann, ed. maj. and others ὅταν 
or 6 τι édv—=quicquid like ὃ ἐὰν in y. 22 instead of 
ὅτι. It cannot be maintained with Diisterdieck 
that this is not Greek, and from the circumstance 
that ὃς ἐὰν or even ὅστις ἐὰν never occcurs in the 
New Testament without the variant reading ἂν, 
while ὅστις ἂν frequently occurs without a va- 
riant reading, it cannot be inferred that ὃ te ἐὰν 
cannot be read here. Cf. Winer, Grammar, p. 
822, sq.—Matth. viii. 19 ὅπου ἐὰν occurs without 
the variant reading ἂν, and ὅστις ἐὰν is as well 
authenticated as dc ἐὰν. But on that account it 
is only possible to read here 6 tz ἐὰν which is oc- 
casioned by the reading ἂν in A; καταγινώσκειν, 
which may have its object in the Accusative, also 


CHAP. III. 19-24. 


125 


allows that reading. But the context forbids it; 
for it is hardly true that we can quiet our heart 
at every accusation, and the reason of such quiet- 
ing to be connected with πείσομεν is too much se- 
parated, while the putting and assumption of the 
case, as stated in vy. 20, and required at vy. 21, in 
which the heart stands in need of such quieting, 
is all but wiped out.—The main difficulty is, that 
in the circumstance of God being greater and 
knowing all things must be found, and that it 
really contains, a quieting of the heart under its 
accusations..—The word μείζων is of frequent oc- 
currence in the writings of John; ina similar 
connection at ch. iv. 4; v. 9; in other connec- 
tions, particularly at Jno. iv. 12; v. 36; viii. 53; 
x. 29: xiii. 16; xiv. 28; xv. 20. The context 
invariably supplies the sense in which it is used; 
here the sentence καὶ γινώσκει πάντα furnishes the 
necessary explanation; He γινώσκει, while the 
heart καταγινώσκει. ‘‘Dulce paregmenonin Greco”? 
(Bengel). God is here called greater in compa- 
rison with our heart; the heart accuses: it is not 
that He accuses more than our heart, but that He 
judges differently, more justly than our heart; 
for He knoweth all things which our heart does 
not perceive, know or observe in giving sentence. 
Πάντα of course points into the heart itself and 
to the immediate surroundings; what is that? 
The context answers that question: vy. 2: οὕπω 
φανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα, V.9: σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, 
we do not altogether know ourselves, we have 
only the beginnings and germs of the life from 
Him; Christ, His life, His bearing and taking 
away sin (vv. 5, 6), His destroying the works of 
the devil (v. 8), objectively completed, but sub- 
jectively to be gradually completed from a life- 
principle of the regeneration (ch. ii. 29), and 
moreover passing through man’s own weakness 
and sin (v. ὃ: dyvifec ἑαυτὸν), and through the 
hatred of the world (v. 13: μισεῖ ὑμᾶς ὁ κόσμος). 
God knows the whole (πάντα) of the new life of 
man even to the ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα (vy. 2), while 
man knows only the particular, the particular 
error of which the heart accuses him; God 
knows the power of His gift to man and its pre- 
servation in penitence, its growth and develop- 
ment both in the hope and the faith in him. 
Therefore God is greater and knoweth all things; 
therefore, this greatness of the God who is our 
Father is a ground of quieting when the heart 
accuses us, and in its vitality and tenderness finds 
a verdict against us. So Besser: ‘Our heart 
knows some things and pronounces against us: 
God knows all things and pronounces not against 
us, but for us, because the seed of the truth out 
of which we are born, is not concealed to Him.” 
He knows, as Sander says, even the smallest 
spark of faith in the glimmering wick, or even 
the hidden germs of true love (Rickli). ‘‘Consci- 
enlia pustila est et scit aliquid nostri duntaxat, at 
Deus magnus est, novit omnia nostra, presentia, 
preterita, futura, et omnium, et habet gus volunta- 
temgue condonandi”’ (Bengel).—Hence this verse 
is. sensu evangelico, to be understood of the love 
which forgives and destroys sin (Luther, Spener, 
Bengel, Besser, Diisterdieck, Huther and others), 
and not sensu legali, of judging righteousness and 
omniscience (Calvin, Beza, Socinus, Grotius, 
Caloy, Liicke, Neander, Ebrard and others). 
Ebrard begins a new sentence and explains thus: 


And before the face of God we shall convince our 
heart, mind, conscience, not the understanding, 
that if (already) our (easily deceived smaller) 
heart accuses us (that we do not practise love), 
God, the Omniscient, is greater than our heart 
(and that we so much the less can stand before 
Him, have rappycia).—Nor must we construe: 
For, if the heart accuses us, because God is 
greater than our heart, He also knoweth all 
things; so de Wette sensu legali, Briickner sensu 
evangelico. Rather the importance of the thought 
justifies the epanalepsis of the ὅτι. 

Third consequence. Filial confidence. vv. 21, 22. 

Ver. 21. Beloved, if our heart condemn 
us not.—’Ayaryroi as in ch. ii. 7; iii. 2; iv. 1, 
7, 11 is here connected with the enjoyment of 
the forgiving love of God in order to bring out 
a new and other feature. The recurrence of 
the words ἡ καρδία καταγινώσκῃ ἡμῶν indicates the 
connection with the foregoing (although, as Ben- 
gel maintains, καρδία, v. 20, καταγινώσκῃ has the 
emphasis), inthe same sense, in order to mark a 
particular case (ἐὰν with conjunct.), which is 
sure to arise, and only the negative μὴ marks the 
antithesis; the word used is μή and not μηκέτι, 
which would make the supposed case the conse- 
quence of what goes before (as Huther supposes). 
A similar construction occurs at ch. i. 8, 9. 

We have confidence towards God.— 
The words παῤῥησίαν πρὸς τὸν ϑεὸν ἔχομεν denote 
the state of the peace of the soul and of undis- 
turbed confidence to God-ward which is opposed 
to that described before by πείθειν τὰς καρδίας 
ἡμῶν, like at Rom, viii. 15. The παῤῥησία ch. ii. 
28; iv. 17 is indeed the child-like free confidence 
before the Father in the time of judgment; the 
reference here also is to a judgment, in the court 
of the conscience, in one’s own heart, but not to 
the future and final judgment. Hence Estius ex- 
plains falsely: fiducia evadend damnationis in die 
judict. But the limitation of παῤῥησία to confi- 
dent prayer and supplication is neither warranted 
by the word itself (2 Cor. vii. 4), the context, nor 
the construction with πρός, which simply indi- 
cates the direction and relation as in Rom. y. 1: 
εἰρήνην---πρὸς τὸν ϑεόν, nor by the parallel-pas- 
sage at ch. v. 14. Here it denotes joyful confi- 
dence to God-ward at every moment of life 
(Rickli, Diisterdieck and others), but not fiducia 
im nostris necessitatibus recurrendi ad ipsum (Lyra), 
or the girdle or mendicant’s bag of all manner of 
necessaries (Luther), fiducia in rogando (Bengel). 
[Alford: ‘To God-ward, in our aspect as turned 
towards and looking to God.—It must be remem- 
bered that the words are said in the full light of 
the reality of the Christian State,—where the 
heart is awakened and enlightened, and the tes- 
timony of the Spirit is active: where the heart’s 
own deceit does not come into consideration as a 
disturbing element.”—M.]. But hereby it is 
not denied that the specific, yea the most signi- 
ficant feature of this filial confidence (Diister- 
dieck) is, what follows— 

Ver. 22. And whatsoever we may (per- 
chance, German: efwa) ask, we receive from 
Him.—The conjunction καὶ connects a particu- 
lar already contained in παῤῥησία like καὶ in y. 
105 (Diisterdieck). Ὃ ἐὰν αἰτῶμεν is to be taken 
quite generally and to be limited only by the 
subject asking, namely the child of God and his 


126 . 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


SSS ae a ὁπ... 


wants (Diisterdieck, Huther). [The latter beau- 
tifully adds: ‘The child of God asks for nothing 
which is contrary to the will of his Father ’— 
M.]. The same holds good of λαμβάνομεν ἀπ’ 
αὐτοῦ (ϑεοῦ). The Present must not be taken 
for the Future (Grotius); it rather denotes the 
present, constant intercourse between the child 
of God with his God. Cf. Jno. xiv. 13; xvi. 24. 
Augustine: ‘Caritas ipsa novit, caritas ipsa orat, 
contra hance aures claudere non novit, qui illam dedit ; 
securus esto, caritas roget, et ibi sunt aures dei; non 
Jit, quod vis, sed fit, quod tibi expedit.” 

Because we keep His commandments 
and do the things which are pleasing in 
His sight.—Here is evidently a parallelism: 
ἐντολὰς---τηρεῖν and τὰ ἀρεστὰ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, 
so that the two together constitute one idea. At 
Jno. viii. 29, τὰ ἀρεστὰ αὐτῷ occurs in a connec- 
tion similar to the present. Besides this also in 
Acts vi. 2; xii. 3.—The term εὐαρεστός of fre- 
quent occurrence in the Pauline writings (Rom. 
xii. 1; xiv. 18; 2 Cor. v.9; Eph. v. 10; Phil. 
iy. 18), with the Dative τῷ ϑεῷ or τῷ κυρίῳ is 
used Col. iii. 20 of the fourth commandment, and 
the parallel passage Eph. vi. 1, has δίκαιον. Cf. 
1. Tim. y. 4: ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ Seov. Hence 
we must also connect τὰ ἀρεστὰ with the com- 
mandments. But while the first clause of the 
parallel sentence specifies the commandments, 
the second clause marks that which is pleasing 
in His sight and the kind of obedience, because 
God requires not a slavish service, but filial obe- 
dience, and that an active one (ποιοῦμεν). Hence 
we must not explain with the Roman Catholic 
expositors ἐντολαὶ of precepta and ἀρεστὰ of con- 
silia evangelica, The greater difficulty is the 
right construction of the connection with ὅτι, 
which indicates the reason why our prayers are 
heard. But the ground is not necessarily causa 
meritoria as the Greek writers think who assume 
an ἀντιδιδόναι on the part of God; and the Ro- 
man Catholics and the Rationalists of course agree 
with them. The context, especially with respect 
to ch. ii. 29; iii. 6, 9, 23, 24, shows that while 
prominence is given to their conduct the re- 
ference is to the relation in which they stand, or 
with the description of their activity to the 
ground on which they move. The relation be- 
tween God and themselves which conditions and 
regulates their conduct is the cause why their 
prayers are heard, because their conduct con- 
ditioned by that relation also regulates their 
prayers according to the will of God (κατὰ τὸ 
ϑέλημα αὐτοῦ ch. vy. 14); the prayers as they are 
made, so they are heard, because we are the 
children of God. The expression of Hunnius, 
that the particle ὅτε is not causalis but rationativa, 
is beside the mark, although the idea is correct. 
Cf. Diisterdieck. [Huther has muliwm in parvo: 
‘‘ore in close connection with the immediately 
preceding λαμβάνομεν indicates the ground of the 
Divine exhibition of love in hearing prayer ; this 
ground, which must not be taken as causa meri- 
toria, is the filial obedience of the person asking, 
whereby God identifies him as His child; the 
idea of obedience is expressed in two codrdinated 
sentences (resembling the Hebrew parallelism) ; 
τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ and τὰ ἀρεστὰ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ are 
synonymous ; ποιεῖν marks the obedience as being 
active; the second sentence points to the circum- 


stance that it does not consist in servile subjec- 
tion to the commandment, but in the filial per- 
formance of that which is well-pleasing to God.” 
Alford, adverting to the Romish misinterpreta- 
tion, excellently expounds: “Out of Christ, 
there are no good works at all: entrance into 
Christ is not won or merited by them. In Christ, 
every work done of faith is good and is pleasing 
to God. The doing of such works is the working 
of the life of Christ in us: they are its sign, they 
are its fruits: they are not of us, but of it and 
of Him. They are the measure of our Christian 
life: according to their abundance, so is our 
access to God, so is our reward from God: for 
they are the steps of our likeness to God. What- 
ever is attributed to them as an efficient cause, 
is attributed not to us, but to Him whose fruits 
they are. Because Christ is thus manifested in 
us, God hears our prayers, which He only hears 
for Christ’s sake: because His Spirit works thus 
abundantly in us, He listens to our prayer, which 
in that measure has become the voice of His 
Spirit. So that no degree of efficacy attributed 
to the good works of the child of God need sur- 
prise us: it is God recognizing, God vindicat- 
ing, God multiplying, God glorifying His own 
work in us. So that when e. g. Corn. a Lap. 
says, ‘“‘Congruum est et congrua merces obedientizx 
et amicitize, ut si homo faciat voluntatem Dei, Deus 
vicissim faciat voluntatem hominis,” all we can re- 
ply is that such a duality, such a reciprocity, 
does not exist for Christians: we are in God, 
He in us; and this St. John continually insists 
on. We have no claim αὖ extra: He works in us 
to do of His good pleasure: and the works 
which He works, which we work, manifest be- 
fore Him, and before all, that we are His child- 
ren.”’—M. ]. 

Fourth consequence: Fellowship of the Spirit 
with particular reference to the ground of these 
consequences, vy. 23, 24. Ὁ 

Ver. 23. And this is His commandment. 
—Ch. i. 5: καὶ ἐστιν αὕτη. Kai is simply copula- 
tive and connecting with τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ speci- 
fies the most essential contents of ἡ ἐντολὴ, which 
indeed embraces two commandments, faith and 
love, but which two commandments, being indis- 
solubly united, contain the sum-total of the being 
determined by the Divine Will in Christ. ’Evro27 
refers neither to the first commandment (J. 
Lange), nor must it be construed in a sense it 
does not bear (de Wette); it is and remains the 
expression of the Divine Will (Diisterdieck). 
Αὐτοῦ of course is=rov ϑεοῦ. [Oecumenius: 
ἔχοντες ἐντολὴν, ἵνα τῇ πίστει τῇ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ 
υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ "Ino. Xp. ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους. Bede: 
Singulari numero mandatum premisit, et duo subse- 
quentia adjungit mandata, fidem scilicet et dilectionem, 
quia «nimirum hee ab invicem separari nequeunt. 
Neque enim sine fide Christi recte nos alterutrum dili- 
gere, neque vere in nomine Jesu Christi sine dilectione 
possumus credere.—M. }. 

That we should believe on the name of 
His Son Jesus Christ and love one ano- 
ther.—Here iva indicates the purpose and not 
only the contents of the commandments, as Huther 
explains [But the strong ¢elic sense of ἵνα can 
hardly be pressed here; see ch. iii. 1, 11.—M.]. 
The Aorist πιστεύσωμεν is not only the best au- 
thenticated and dificilior lectio, but also more 


CHAP. III. 19-24. 


127 


thoughtful than the πιστεύωμεν formed after the 
pattern of ἀγαπῶμεν, and denotes by the side of 
the Present ἀγαπῶμεν, that the former precedes the 
latter, πίστις as the pre-supposition, not as being 
done once for all (against Diisterdieck), but as a 
root of vital strength, and ἀγάπη as the stem, as 
in Gal. v. 6: πίστις ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐνεργουμένη, or 1 
Tim. i. 5: ἀγάπη---ἐκ πίστεως. Faith conceived 
as an ἔργον ϑεοῦ (Jno. vi. 29) and Jno. xvi. 9 
(ἁμαρτία, ὅτι ov πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐμέ) as the ground 
of a holy being, of the whole obedience, is yet 
man’s work and hence may be required in the 
commandment, more especially since the con- 
struction πιστεύειν tive (Jno. iv. 21; v. 24, 46, 47; 
viii. 45) denotes the assensus with which man’s 
agency awakes, while πιστεύειν τίνα describes the 
received notitia, and πιστεύειν εἰς τίνα the God- 
wrought fiducia, which embraces the least, the 
notitia, and also the moment next to it, the 
assensus. The object of faith is τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ 
αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This ὄνομα is the revelation 
of the being of the Son of God, and contains 
within itself and discloses to believers what is 
testified of Him and by Himself, and is to be tes- 
tified ; it includes both the predieatio (Rom. x. 14) 
as Calvin and Beza explain, and the meritum and 
the promissiones Christi et de Christo, as pointed 
out by S. Schmidt and others. Doctrina Christiana 
(Episcopius), and the dignity of the Messiah (S. G. 
Lange), are consequently insufficient. [Alford: 
“To believe the Gospel-message concerning Him, 
and Him as living in it, in all His fulness.””—M. ]. 
Conformably to the close connection of faith and 
love (Jno. xvi. 4, 7 sqq.) the Apostle now annexes 
the Present ἀγαπῶμεν to the Aorist by the copu- 
lative xai.—The additional clause— 

As He gave us commandment, being a 
further qualification of love (ch. ii. 7, 8; iii. 16> 
Jno, xiii. 34; xy. 12, 13), belongs to the latter part 
of the sentence (Myrberg: non modo amandum 
est, sed etiam vere et recte amandum), and not to the 
former (πεστεύσωμεν), as Estius, Bengel, Sander.— 
Hence Christ, and not God, is and remains the 
subject of this lateral idea. Christ, on whom, as 
. the Son of God, we have to believe, is the origin 
and standard of brotherly love. 

Ver. 24. And he that keepeth His com- 
mandments, abideth in Him and He in 
Him.—Passing over the lateral idea and the 
ἐντολὴ, ν. 23, and resuming the ἐντολὰς τηρεῖν, v. 22, 
the Apostle now makes prominent the fourth 
consequence, the fellowship of God with us and 
our fellowship with God, according to which He 
is in us and we are in Him. Hence αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ, 
avroc—all three—describe God and not Christ 
(Neander, Besser, Sander). 

And hereby we know that He abideth 
in us, from [out of] the Spirit that He gave 
us.—God’s abiding in us is the object of know- 
ledge; and it is important to notice that God’s 
abiding in us is not specified here as res minus 
verisimilis (Socinus), but as the condition of our 


abiding in God; the two mutually include each | 


other and must be taken in that sense. And this 
is known ἐν rottw=ék πνεύματος. Ἔν τούτῳ ob- 
viously refers to what follows, as ch. ii. 3, and 
not to what precedes, as ch. ii. 5. Surprising is 
the transition from the formula ἐν τούτῳ, placed 
at the beginning of this sentence and so current 
in John, to ἐκ πνεύματος, but the transition may 
28 


be explained by the circumstance that after ὅτε 
μένει ἐν ἡμῖν the clearness and beauty of the 
structure required substantive proof, and that 
this substantive proof occasioned the fine and 
thoughtful description of the source and origin of 
that knowledge by the preposition ἐκ. Cf. ch. iv. 
6: ἐκ τούτου γινώσκομεν. The πνεῦμα is the Holy 
Spirit who moves us, the living and powerful 
principle of our life from (out of) and in God. 
Here we should remember the χρίσμα, ch. ii. 20- 
26. Inadequate is de Wette’s explanation, that 
πνεῦμα denotes the Divine appropriated in faith 
and life, but that the reference here is to the 
right knowledge and doctrine of the person of 
Jesus, and even more inadequate is the opinion 
of Socinus, that πνεῦμα is love.—In the annexed 
relative sentence ov must not be taken as a genit. 
partitivus, but as the result of attraction. Winer, 
Part III. 3 24. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The Christian should not be or remain in a 
state of uncertainty whether he really is a child of 
God (out) of the truth; his redemption and the 
reconciliation of God to him and his reconcilia- 
tion to God and his salvation need not be to him 
a doubtful or only probable state. But clear and 
firm knowledge on this subject he does not ac- 
quire at one stroke, over-night; he must learn it 
by living and exercising himself in love. The 
Christian in process of being [7. e., in the develop- 
ment of this Christian life—M.] is in a state of 
fermentation, or engaged in single combat, with- 


out a survey of the whole field, the battle con-- 


ducing to victory, although here and there de- 
feats occur, and he is forced to retire even unto 


flight—without being able to imperil the ultimate: 


victory. Hence he has misgivings which he 
can and ought to discard, fearless and full of confi- 


dence and reliance on the Lord of hosts and of’ 


the victory. 


2. The final cause of such assurance of faith and. 


blessed certainty of salvation, constantly ex- 
posed to the danger of being disturbed by the 


accusations and charges of the heart discerning. 


and reproving the eyer-recurring omissions and 
imperfections and transgressions in thought, 
word and deed, lies not in ourselves, neither in 
the mark, in brotherly love and, generally, in obe- 
dience to the commandments of God, nor in such 
acts of reproof of an anxious and contrite heart, 
but in God Himself, in that which He has pro- 
mised and imparted to us, and that He abides by 
His word and work, also in our hearts, nursing 
and furthering the same even unto completion. 
Three things are clearly and distinctly asserted: 
a, If the Christian looks at himself, anxiety 

and doubts concerning the state of grace 

are justified; Heb. vi. 4-6; x. 26-31, in 

which passages Luther found ‘‘a hard 

knot,” and on which see R. Stier, point 

to the possibility of a relapse, as also 

Rom. viii. 13; Gal. vi. 7,8. This is 
contrary to Calvin’s assumption of the 

donum perseverantie given with regenera- 

tion, and which is not taught at Jno. x. 

28, 29. But if the Christian looks up to 

the mercy of God, he acquires confidence 

and joyfulness and the Holy Spirit bears 


΄ 


128 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


-....νρν.ρψρνψνψνψρν.ρ.ρνρν.ρψν.ν.ψ...,Ὰρρϑππ;΄΄᾽,»ϑοὌςτπτ΄΄΄΄“Ἕἵ!΄---΄'ΠΠΕτ!ᾧτἝππτἕἝἷ--- ---- ERROR ERR 


witness of his adoption and Divine life- 
fellowship (v. 24, Rom. viii. 16-27). 
This is contrary to the Roman Catholic 
doctrine except by that the Christian, 
special revelation, cannot have any cer- 
tainty concerning his state of grace. 

ὃ. The point in question is not a mathemat- 
ical certitudo, an actus intellectus, but only 
fiducia as well as confidence in the pure- 
ness of a man’s disposition. 

c. The certain assurance of standing in 
God’s grace is not identical with nor to 
be confounded with the certainty of 
being predestinated. The Council of 
Trent was right, in opposition to the Re- 
formed, to reject this certainty (vi. 15, 
16) but wrong in rejecting the former 
assurance (vi. 9): ‘‘Sicut nemo pius de 
Dei misericordia, de Christi merito deque 
Sacramentorum virtute et efficacia dubitare 
potest, sic quilibet, dum se ipsum suamque 
propriam infirmitatem et indispositionem res- 
picit, de sua gratia formidare et timere potest, 
quam nullus scire valeat certitudine fidet, cur 
non potest subesse falsum, se gratiam Dei 
esse consecutum.”’ Here, as we may rea- 
dily perceive, truth and falsehood are 
suspiciously mixed up. Cf. Frank, 7 λεο- 
logie der K. F, 2. 78, 141. Thiersch, 
Vorlesungen tiber Protestantismus und Kath- 
olizismus, 2, 149-159. 

3. The two cases that conscience finds a verdict 
against us and not against us are opposed to each 
other, but nevertheless facts belonging to the 
Christian life and perfectly compatible with it, 
even as ch. i. 8, 9 and ch. iii. 9 do not cancel 
each other. These propositions cannot be classed 
aqong the paradoxes, which may not be without 
truth, as stated by Luther, e. g. ‘Si in fide fiert 
posset adulterium peccatum non esset,” and Proposi- 
tion 32 in Grund und Artikel, which were unjustly 
condemned by the Romish bull (1520, Erlan- 
gen, 24, 138): A good work done in the very 
best manner, is still a daily sin, οἷο. ΝΟΥ dare 
we try to aid the establishment of a morality for 
the people, and another morality for the saints 
by drawing with the Roman Catholics a distine- 
tion between pracepta and consilia evangelica, be- 
tween a selfish amor concupiscentiz# calculating on 
salvation and an amor amicitie surrendering it- 
self in pure fidelity. We may neither separate by 
false distinctions the objectively given command- 
ments with the will of God nor the subjectively 
imposed obligations, nor, worse still, men from 
one another. But we ought to contemplate both 
truths, that our natural disposition which is sin- 
ful before God ever and again mingles without, 
and contrary to the Christian’s will with the 
works done by the motions of the Spirit from 
above and in faith, and that the Christian born 
of God has before his eyes and in his heart the 
one will of God, as revealed in the Law and in 
Christ, which aims not at a higher or a lower mo- 
rality [but at one morality—M.], and that his 
obedience is well-pleasing to God, not because of 
his own doings or nature, but solely for the sake 
of Christ. Our life here on earth is made up of 
alternate joy and grief, of rising and falling, of 
forgiveness of sins and cancelling and the com- 
mission of sin. Sin, moreover, is more sinful in 


the children of God than in the servants of per- 
dition, for they have a more profound and lively 
sense of the slightest stirrings of the wrath of 
God, because and though their falling 1s not yet 
a falling from grace, as at Gal. v. 4 (τῆς χάριτος 
ἐξεπέσατε). Not every falling involves the loss 
of grace. But obedience and patience in good 
works remain marks of the state of grace. Cf. 
C. A. 6, 20, f..C.-4, 5, 6, Frank J, 1; 2, 177 sq,; 
181 sq.; 139 sqq.; 869 sqq. 

4. Filial confidence which does not begin with 
the entrance upon our inheritance [but here on 
earth—M.], has a παῤῥησία not only in the day 
of judgment, but already here on earth, and it 
evidences itself both by zealous efforts towards 
self-sanctification based on the assurance of the 
forgiveness of sins, and by confident prayer. 
‘Prayer is as essential to manas his conscience, 
because the conscience, in proportion to its clear- 
ness and vitality, necessarily passes into prayer” 
(Léber, Lehre vom Gebet p.1.). If the conscience 
is pacified, prayer will be sure of being heard. 
If man is so circumstanced that he lives and 
moves in God’s word, his word in prayer to God 
will also prevail with God, in whose being (as we 
may learn from the case of the praying God-man), 
as well as in man’s being prayer has its ultimate 
reason. Harless, therefore, has not very judi- 
ciously classed prayer among the subjective means 
of Christian virtue (thik 3. 33).—A limitation 
of prayer that may be heard beyond the pattern- 
prayer of the Lord’s Prayer is not permitted ; 
you may in the state of grace pray for every 
thing assured of being heard, but equally assured 
that nothing is said of the time when and the 
manner how your prayers will be heard. God 
hears whatever we ask, but not exactly as we 
ask. 

5. Faith in God, who is Love, and (in virtue 
of our belief in the love of God) love of the breth- 
ren are intimately connected, the reference being 
to ‘‘faith as the transition from darkness to 
light and love as the walk in the light” (Hofmann, 
Schriftbeweis X1., 2, 337, cf. v. 14). 

6. It follows from the testimony of the Holy 
Spirit within thee (cf. No. 2 above), that thou 
art a temple of God (1 Cor. iii. 16), or a tabernacle 
of God among men (Rey, xxi. 8). 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Much depends on knowledge, more on know- 
ledge of the truth, most on the knowledge whether 
we are ourselves of the truth.—He is to be pro- 
nounced happy in whom the difficult self-know- 
ledge was acquired and carried out as the know- 
ledge of sin, but more happy he in whom the 
knowledge of God forces itself through the know- 
ledge of himself.—Four marks of our adoption 
or four evidences of our being of the truth: 1. 
Peace of the soul under the accusations of con- 
science (vv. 19, 20); 2. Filial trust under the 
wants and deprivations of life (vv. 21, 22); ὃ. 
Assurance and decision under the manifold and 
different requirements (x. 23); 4. Joy of fellow- 
ship in solitude or desertion. — How can you 
pacify your heart disquieted by the accusings of 
conscience? 1. Know what God has hitherto 
done for you not in vain: He desires to save you; 
2. Feel how in such a judgment the holiness of 


CHAP. III. 19-24. 


129 


-----.. -- τ ττ»Ο.».---.--ς-------.-ς-ςς-ς-ς-ς------ςς-ς-ς-ς  — — ———— ΌὍὃὁὃὁὃὁὃ ὃἙἑΛἝΛῬΛἩὌῃΙἠ)ΨΣ 


God is working in you: He desires to purify you; 

‘3. Hope that He will gloriously accomplish it, 
_as He has promised: He is the Master and your 
life will be a masterpiece at the last.—Prayer and 
commandment are essentially related to each 
other; thy word addressed to God in prayer will 
surely be heard, if God’s word addressed to thee 
in the commandment is observed. God will not 
be asked in vain by those who suffer themselves 
to be commanded by Him. The hearing of prayer 
is not affected by the conduct of man fixed by his 
relation to God, but by this relation which pro- 
duces in man childlikeness, childlike obedience, 
childlike trust, childlike disposition and childlike 
ways, even as it affords paternal fidelity and pa- 
ternal aid. With faith in the name of His Son 
Jesus Christ thou hast the love of God above all 
things, or the fulfilment of the commandments 
of the first table; and from faith in the paternal 
love of God revealed in Christ flows Christian 
brotherly love, or the fulfilment of the command- 
ments of the second table.—He is in us, this is 
ever the first and most important thing; His 
commandments are before our obedience to them; 
and He is with and inthem. But if we do not 
value His commandments we do not value our- 
selves, we become ruins and a desert. In desert 
ruins He does not dwell; we must be builded up, 
if not into temples, at least into tabernacles. 
He builds—even the tabernacle into the temple, 
and instead of cares of the soul in indigence of 
the Good and the Eternal Good, jubilant hymns 
of praise for the inheritance of the saints swell 
in majestic fulness and strength. — Without 
Christ, the Son of God, God is not thy Father 
but without the Spirit of the Father and the Son, 
thou hast neither God the Father nor the 
Saviour. 

LurHer:—Although our conscience make us 
afraid and represent to us God as angry, yet God 
is greater than our heart. Conscience is but a 
single drop, but the reconciled God an ocean of 
consolation.—When a man is rebuked and con- 
demned by his conscience, he grows terrified; 
but against this darkness of the heart we may 
say, God knoweth all things. Conscience is al- 
ways fearful and shuts the eyes; but God is 
deeper and higher than thy heart and searches 
its inmost state most thoroughly. 

Starke :—We believers do not indulge in idle 
imaginings and suppositions, but have sure, firm, 
irrefragable grounds and testimonies, wrought 
by the Holy Ghost Himself that we are of the 
truth and born of God.—A man may have a great 
temptation and yet be a child of God.—Away 


Sein Geist spricht meinem Creiste 
. Manch siisses Trostwort zu; 

Wie Gott dem Hiilfe leiste, 

Der bei Thm suchet Ruh ; 

Und wie Er hab’ erbauet, 

Ew edle neue Stadt 

Da Aug und Herze schauet, 

Was es geglaubet hat. 

Da ist mein Theil und Erbe 

Mir priichtig zugericht’t ; 

Wenn ich gleich fall und sterbe, 

Fillt doch mein Himmel nicht. (v. 9.) 


God. 


with forged letters and testimonials! if the in- 
ward witness of the conscience contradicts and 
condemns. Conscience is more than a thousand 
witnesses. How false is the charge that Chris- 
tianity causes melancholy and gloominess! Sor- 
row may indeed be found among Christians but 
without any fault of Christianity or of God, and 
moreover with them true knowledge is followed 
by their sorrow being turned into joy.—A heart 
rejoicing before God is a great treasure; O, the 
happiness of being permitted to appear before 
God in His majesty with joyfulness; therefore 
let us pray: Lord, give us a cheerful heart !— 
The spirit of joyfulness is also a spirit of prayer. 
Believers will receive what they ask of God in 
the manner which He has promised and at the 
tome He thinks proper.—Nothing can be required 
of a Christian beyond faith and love: believers 
will not be taken captive by statutes, but they 
stand in liberty.—Be ashamed to say or order 
anything without the commandment of God, and 
again be ashamed to do anything in opposition to 
the commandment of God.—To live a good life 
requires us to abide good; it is not enough to have 
come into God, one must also abide in Him.—The 
believer is a great miracle, seeing that the infinite 
and immeasurable God wholly dwells and walks 
in him. 

Heupner:—lIs here perchance taught work- 
confidence? No! faith remains the ground of jus- 
tification but we may hope that the genuineness 
and purity of our faith will follow love.—The 
Christian’s prayer is never unheard; for God 
gives us that which is good although not always 
that to which we gave utterance, not that which 
we intended; the Christian ever desires the Good 
and the Good only, and the better we grow, the 
more do all our desires coincide with the will of 
Only those are able to ask who are ina 
state of grace; aserious, pious, honest mind is the 
condition of prayer; a braggart cannot pray.— 
The presence and continued operation of the 
Spirit in keeping us in the right discipline, warn- 
ing, moving, strengthening and comforting us, is 
the sign that we belong to Christ, if He leaves us 
we are separated from Christ. 

Adapted from Zien (Gesetz and Zeugniss, 4):— 
How happy they who are of the truth! 1. They 
may pacify their heart before Him. 2. They 
have a joyful confidence toward God; 3. They 
are they that will receive from Him whatsoever 
they ask.—Compare here hymns like Paut Grr- 
HARD’S: “Ist Gott fiir mich, so trete (If God is for 
me, etc.). 


His Spirit cheers my spirit 
With words of comfort sweet ; 
That they God’s help inherit 
Who rest with Him do seek. 
And that He has upbuilded 

A city fair and new, 

Where eyes and heart forever 
What they believed shall view. 
For there in glory lying 

My lot is held in store 

With all my falls, and dying, 
My heaven falls nevermore. 


130 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Also ErpMANN NEUMEISTER’S: Jesus nimmt die Siinder an (Jesus, sinners does receive); espe- 


cially v. 7. 


Mein Gewissen qualt mich nicht, 
Moses darf mich nicht verklagen ; 
Der mich frei und ledig spricht, 


Hat die Siinden abgetragen (1 Jno. iii. 


Dass mich Nichts verdammen kann ; 
Jesus nimmt die Siinder an. 


[Pyte: vv. 19-21.—This will show us to be 
Christians indeed; and while the impartial testi- 
mony and inward sense of our own consciences 
assure us of the sincere performance of our own 
duty, we may safely conclude that God, the 
Searcher of hearts and Standard of all truth, 
will approve of and reward us. And on the 
contrary, whoever by the clear conviction of his 
own mind knows and feels himself to be a hypo- 
critical transgressor of his moral duty, must be 
assured that God, who knows him better than he 
does himself, cannot fail to be his more severe 
judge and avenger.—M. ]. 

[Buxx: v. 20.—If a man be conscious to him- 
self of his own wickedness, yea, the very secret 
wickedness and hypocrisy of his heart, sure 
God Himself, who set up in every man this 
‘“<candle”” of conscience, as Solomon ealls it, 
Prov. xx. 27, cannot be ignorant of it; He being 
the fountain of all knowledge, and all knowledge 
in the creature derivative from Him, and so 
knowing all things that are knowable by any 
creature, and infinitely more.—M. ]. 

[MacknicuT: y. 22.—This general declaration 
must be limited by the conditions, which in other 
passages of Scripture are gnade necessary to our 
petitions being granted by God; such as, that 
we ask things agreeable to His Will, ch. v. 14, 
15; and that we ask them in faith, Jas. i. 6; 
that is, in the full persuasion of the Divine wis- 
dom and goodness, and with sincerity and res- 
ignation. Such prayers, they who keep the 
commandments of God, may hope will be heard, 
because they keep His commandments by habit- 
ually doing the things which are well-pleasing 
to Him.—M. ]. 

[PyLe: vy. 23, 24.—These verses may be thus 
paraphrased: In short, true faith in the doc- 
trine of Christ, and true charity to mankind, 
especially to our Christian brethren, is the sum- 
total of our duty. And you, that have already 
duly performed it, have a sufficient pledge and 
earnest of your acceptance with God, as true 
disciples of Christ, by the gifts and graces of 
His Holy Spirit conferred upon .you.—M. 17. 

[Riptey: y. 24.—The way of the Spirit is not 
to be traced; the working of God is not to be 
perceived. The Divine Author and His opera- 
tion are hidden from us, but His work is mani- 
fest. And though we cannot see God at any 
time, or feel the motion of the Spirit in our 
hearts, yet is there certain evidence whether we 
are brought on by Him or not. St. John gives 
us an infallible rule, that we may know that God, 
by His Spirit, dwelleth in us, if we keep His 
commandments.—M. ]. 

[Ezexien Hopxins:—A clear conscience gives 
us boldness of access unto God. Guilt abashes the 
soul, and makes it both ashamed and afraid to 
appear in the presence of God: and therefore 
Adam, as soon as he had sinned against his 


My conscience now is purified, 
All plea to Moses is denied, 

He acquitteth me to-day 

Who all sin did take away; 
Nothing can condemn or grieve 
Jesus sinners does receive. 


5), 


Maker, presently hides himself from Him. We 
may observe in ourselves, what a slavish deject- 
edness seizeth us when we come to God in duty, 
after we have wronged Him by any known sin: 
we come to Him suspiciously ; and with such a 
misgiving fear, as if we would not have God take 
notice that we are before Him; and are still in 
pain, till the duty be over. But, when our con- 
sciences are clear, oh, with what delight do we 
haste to God, and with what content do we stay 
with Him! How doth the soul dilate and spread 
itself under the smiles of God, beating full upon 
it! «50, O Lord, here is a heart that I labour to 
make and keep void of offence; do thou fill it 
with thy promised grace and Spirit. It is not, 
indeed, a mansion pure enough for the pure and 
holy God; yet it issuch, as thou wilt accept, and 
in which thou wilt dwell. There are still many 
hidden corruptions in it, but do thou search them 
out; and thou, who hast kept thy servant from 
presumptuous sins, do thou also cleanse me from 
secret faults.”” Thus a clear conscience, with a 
holy and reverend boldness, addresseth itself to 
God; and sweetly closeth up every duty and 
every prayer, with full assurance of obtaining 
mercy from God. So the Apostle (Heb. ix. 22): 
“Let us draw near... .in full assurance of 
faith: how may we gain this full assurance, 
when we draw near to God? By “having our 
hearts sprinkled from an eyil conscience:” get 
but a pure and clear conscience, and that will 
enable you to draw near to God in full assurance 
of faith, and so here (1 Jno. iii. 21): ‘ Beloved, 
if our heart condemn us not, then have we con- 
fidence towards God:” if conscience be not eyil 
to accuse us, then have we confidence towards 
God: when the face of man’s conscience looks 
cheerful, and hath not a frown or a wrinkle 
upon it, this makes us joyfully to apprehend that 
God’s face towards us is serene also, and that we 
shall be welcome at all times into our Father’s 
presence: this conscience suggests to us, and 
makes us come with a holy, yet with an awful 
boldness unto God.—M. ]. 

[Barrow :—No man can otherwise found any 
assurance of God’s special love to him, than upon 
a good conscience: testifying that he doth sin- 
cerely love God, and endeavour faithfully to obey 
His commandments.—If we desire to judge rea- 
sonably about ourselves, or to know our true 
state, the only way is to compare our hearts and 
lives with the law of God, judging ourselves by 
that rule according to which God will judge us. 
If we find in our hearts the love of God and good- 
ness (sincere although imperfect) ; if we perceive 
ourselves disposed to keep God’s commandments 
(to live piously, righteously and soberly in this 
world); then may we have a satisfactory hope 
concerning our state; then ‘‘ we may (as St. John 
saith) have confidence toward G'od, because we keep 
His commandments and do those things that are pleas- 


CHAP. IV. 1-6, 


ing to Him:” but if we do not find that mind in 
us, and that practice, we, in conceiting well of 
ourselves upon any other grounds, do but flatter 
and impose upon ourselves; if all the world 
should account us good, and take us to be in a 
good case, we should not at all believe them, or 
mind them; for let no man deceive us, he that doeth 
righteousness, he (and he alone) ἐδ righteous, is the 
most faithful advice and unquestionable sentence 
of St. John. It is therefore (that by resting on 
such false bottoms we be not abused, and drawn 
thence to neglect the amendment of our hearts 
and ways, in order to our final account) a duty 
incumbent upon us thus to search our hearts and 
try our ways, and accordingly to judge ourselves: 
the doing which with care and conscience would 
dispose us to prepare for the judgment we speak 
of; for, Jf (saith St. Paul) we would judge our- 
selves, we should not be judged, or not condemned. 
—M.]. 

a hoes :—(Christ), when about to partfrom 
His disciples, no more to be with them in His 
personal bodily presence, promised that He 
would be invisibly near and present among them, 
no less truly than during His earthly manifesta- 
tion. The proof of this, His actual presence 
among them, should be the communication to 
them of His Spirit. This should be the medium 
between believers and their Saviour, until vision 
takes the place of faith; till that immediate view 
of Christ, enjoyed by His disciples in the familiar 
intercourse of his earthly life, is restored in 
heightened glory to believers. Itisto this inward 
experience that the Apostle makes his appeal with 
these Churches and to it the inward experience 
of believers in all ages bears witness. Here, 
then, are conjoined two characteristic marks of 
fellowship with Christ which cannot be discoy- 


131 


ered from each other; the one inward, percep- 
tible to the immediate inner consciousness, the 
other belonging to the outward life, but pre- 
supposing the former, of which it is at once the 
outward expression and the condition of its con- 
tinuance. The first is—-Participation in the Spirit 
—promised by Christ; the second, Obedience 
to His commandments, which is the fruit of that 
Spirit’s agency, and in which such participation 
makes itself apparent. This being the Spirit’s 
work, is also, as the evidence of this work, the 
condition of its continuance; all Divine gifts 
being conditioned upon the faithful use of what 
‘“‘is bestowed, according to the words of Christ: 
Whoso hath, to him shall be given.””—M. ]. 

[On vv. 19, 20 see De corde condemnante, Critici 
Sacri Thes. Nov. 2, 991. 
A Sermon byRosert ΚΟΊΤΗ, D.D. 
Sermon Tuemes: God greater 
than our heart. 
Conscience an earnest of the last 
judgment. 
Use to be made of the misgivings of 
conscience. 
CHARLES Stm£0N, A good and evil 
conscience, Works 20, p. 454. 
. R. Souru, The nature and mea- 

sures of conscience, 2 Sermons. 
. ANDREW GRay, The mystery of 
faith opened up, 6 Sermons. 
Isaac ΠΑ, Zhe Gospel a 
feast of Love, Serm. 2, 67. 
Joun Fuavet, The Spirit's in- 
dwelling, Works, 2, 328. 
J. Basnace, L’union de lame 
avec Jésus-Christ, Serm. 2, 501. 
—M.]. 


v. 20. 


v. 24. 


6. Warning and Exhortation with reference to the false teachers. 


CHAPTER LY. 1-6. 


Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of! God: be- 


D> Ore vo bo 


cause many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye? the Spirit of 
God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come? in the flesh is of God: 
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus‘ Christ is come in the flesh is not of! 
God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; 
and even now already is it in the world. 
overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They 
are of' the world: therefore speak they of! the world, and the world heareth them. We 


Ye are of! God, little children, and have 


are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of! God heareth not us.® 
Hereby’ know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 


Verse 1. [1 ἐκ, German: “out of.”—M. 


Verse 2. 2 γινώσκετε A. Β. 6. 6. al. Cod. Sin. has in the text γινώσκομεν, but corrected γινώσκετε. 
8 ἐληλυθότα A.C. Sinait—B. reads ἐληλυθέναι; Vulgate: venisse conforming to the usage of Latin. 
(German: “Every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh.”—M. ] 
Verse 3. * Instead of the reading of A.B. τὸν Τησοῦν, G.K.andSin.have Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, 
but G. has also the Article and Sin. reads κύριον insteadof Χριστὸν. Both readings, the shorter τὸν 


Ἰησοῦν, 


and the longer agreeing with v. 2, are well authenticated, and either may pass for the ori- 


ginal reading, it being equally probable that the longer reading was abbreviated into the shorter, and 
that the shorter was changed into the longer; the testimony for both renders the decision very difficult ; 
but the shorter form seems to be the lectio difficilior.—By the side of the reading ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεὶ 


132 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


τὸν Ἰησοῦν, the Church Fathers have the variation ὃ λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν, among the Latins 
Tertullian (negantes—et solventes, ady. Marc. 5, 16), Augustine qut solvit Jeswm et negat in carne venisse) 
also the two conjoined. It is repeatedly asserted, that the heretics suppressed Avecv (Socrates ἢ. Ll. 
7,32; Fulbert and Hincmar: Hraserunt. in Tischendorf 1859 editio major), Bengel well observes: hu- 
manam potius artem, quam apostolicam redolet (Ave) sapientiam. It is a dogmatical terminus techni- 
cus to denote the Nestorianism which dissolves the union of the Godhead and the humanity in Jesus, 
Christ. 
(Socrates, H. Ε. VII.382: γέγραπτο ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις ὅτι πᾶν πνεῦμα 
ὃ λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν. Ireneus (ILI, 8, p. 511 ed. Stieren): 
Igitur omnes extra dispositionem sunt, qui sub obtentu agnitionis alterum quidem Jesum intelligunt, alte- 
rum autem Christum, et alterum Unigenitum, et alterum Salvatorem .. . Sententia enim eorum homicida- 
lis, Deos quidem plures confingens et Patres multos simulans. Comminuens autem et per multa dividens 
Filium Det ; quos et Dominus nobis cavere predixit, et discipulus ejus Joannes in predicta epistola fugere 
eos precepit dicens : “Multi seductores exierunt in hunc mundum, qui non confitentur Jesum Christum in 
carne venisse. Hic est seductor et Antichristus. Videte cos, ne perdatis quod operati estis.” Et rursus in 
Epistola ait: “ Multi pseudo-prophetx exierunt de sxculo. In hoc cognoscite Spiritum Dei. Omnis spiritus 
on confitetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse, ex Deo est. Et omnis Spiritus qui solvit Jesum, non est ex 
eo, sed de antichristo est.” Hee autem similia sunt illi quod in Evangelio dictum est, quoniam “ Verbum 
caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis.”—Origen on Matth. xxv. 14 (Vol. 1V. 359-361 ed. Lommat.): Secun- 
dum hance divinitatis sux naturam non peregrinatur, sed peregrinatur secundum dispensationem corporis 
quod suscepit . —Haec autem dicentes non solvimus suscepti corporis hominem, cum sit scriptum apud 
Joannem “ Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum non est ex Deo: sed unicuique substantix proprietatem serva- 
mus. St enim omnis homo fidelis “qui conjungitur Domino unus spiritus est:” quanto magis ‘homo ille 
quem secundum dispensationem carnis Christus suscepit non est solvendus ab eo, nec alter est dicendus ab 
eo? Et vide quomodo ait: “ Sicut homo peregre futurus” quoniam non erat homo, sed sicut homo et quasi 
homo peregrinabitur, qui erat ubique secundum divinitatis naturam.” While thus Ireneus and Origen 
clearly had the reading ὃ λύει before them, Polycarp, on the other hand, seems to quote, though 
looseiy, the received text (Ep. ad. Philipp. cap. 7): Πάς yap ὃς av μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν 
Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριρτός ἐστι. Kai ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ τὸ 
μαρτύριον τοῦ στανροῦ ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλον ἐστί. καὶ ὃς ἂν μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λό- 
για τοῦ κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας καὶ λέγῃ μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε 
κρίσιν εἷναι, οὗτος πρωτότοκός ἐστι τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Caltord|,—Huther : Very singular 
is the opinion of Semler that ὃ Avec originated oculorum vitio; the reading may probably be accounted 


for from the polemics against Gnosticism (Grotius, Liicke, de Wette, Huther), and this supposition is 
borne out by the scholion in Matthei p. 225: προώδενσαν yap αὐτοῦ (τοῦ ἀντιχριστοῦ)αὶ 


αἱρέσεις, ὧν 


αρακτεριστικὸν τὸ διὰ ψενδοπροφητῶν καὶ πνευμάτων λύειν 
A : = Ἶ 


τον Ἰησοῦν ἐν τῷ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν αὐτὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι.--Μ.1. 
(German: ‘And every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.” —M.] 
(German: ‘And this is the |spirit] of antichrist, of which ye have heard that it cometh, and now it is in the 


world already.” So Alford.—M.]. 


Verse 6. © ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. οὐκ ἀκούει ἡμῶν is wanting in A. G. (perhaps by mistake?) 
Ἰ ἐκ τούτου B.G.K.Sinait; important on account of ch. iii. 24; ἐκ rod πνεύματος. 


[German: ‘From this.” —M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


The difference of the spirits renders the trial neces- 
sary, v.1. 

Ver. 1. Beloved:—The Apostle begins with 
ἀγαπητοί as ch. iii, 21 [ef. v. 7. ch. 111. 2.—M], in 
the joyful consciousness of the common blessings 
of the Divine adoption, and earnestly solicitous 
of inciting and exhorting those to the exhibition 
of brotherly love who are loved of God. 

Believe not every spirit.—Here, as in ch. 
li. 18-28, the Apostle adverts to the false teach- 
ers. Those who are to believe on the name of 
the Son of God (ch. iii. 23) in the power of the 
Holy Ghost (ch. iii. 24) given to them and bear- 
ing witness to their spirit that they are the chil- 
dren of God (cf. Rom. viii. 16), must not believe 
every spirit. The reference is to a plurality, a 
multitude of spirits (πάντε πνεύματι), not to a 
Dual but to a Plural. Hence, we must under- 
stand the expression of the spirits of men to whom 
the spirit bears witness. Every human spirit has 
its peculiarity, its special gifts and views, its 
mode of expression, which the animating, 
moving Sprrir does not change or render uni- 
form. Many a spirit might secure our approba- 
tion, sympathy and attention, which is not 
influenced by the Spirit of God. Hence the 
warning, to which, because of its great iniport- 
ance, there is forthwith annexed the exhortation: 
—‘ But try the spirits whether they are of God.” 
[Huther: The idea πνεῦμα is closely connected 
with ψευδοπροφῆται. The true prophets spoke, as 
we read 1 Pet. i. 21, ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερό- 
μενοι; the source of the revelations whose utter- 
ers (πρόφημι) they are, is the πνεῦμα ἅγιον or 
the πεῦμα τοῦ teow, whereby is described, 


not an affection of their mind, but the Diving 
Power, different from their own individuality, 
which animates and influences them (δύναμις 
ὑψίστου, the synonyme of πνεῦμα ἅγιον, Luke i. 35.). 
This πνεῦμα speaks by the prophet, entering 
into his πνεῦμα and communicating to him the 
truth to be revealed; and thus the πνεῦμα of the 
prophet becomes a πνεῦμα ἐκ Tov Veov. But since 
every prophet has his own πνεῦμα, there is, al- 
though the πνεῦμα ἅγιον is One, a plurality of 
prophetical spirits. The same relation takes 
place in an opposite direction, in the case of the 
pseudo-prophets. They also are under the influ- 
ence of one spiritual being, to wit, under that of 
the πνεῦμα, that ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ οὐ κ ἔστι, the πνεῦμα 
τῆς πλάνης ; this spirit also is one, but since it pene- 
trates with its lie the πνεύματα of the pseudo-pro- 
phets and makes them like itself, we may say of the 
πνεῦμα of each individual prophet that is not of 
God, that it is not a πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, but a 
πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης.᾽᾽ --- 6. rationalistic interpre- 
tation of Socinus (‘‘sensus hominis aliguo modo 
inspiratus”’) and Episcopius (‘‘doctrina”’), and 
the figurative construction of the word πνεῦμα-ες 
λαλοῦντες ἐν πνεύματι of Liicke, de Wette and 
Calvin (‘‘ pro eo qui spiritus dono se preditum esse 
Jactat ad obeundum prophetize munus’’), are equally 
irrelevant.—M. ]. 

But try the spirits whether they are of 
God.—John evidently speaks of a plurality of 
spirits (τὰ πνεύματα). Instead of a receiving 
surrender to and of agreeing with them, of the 
assensus (πιστεύειν) John requires a δοκιμάζειν, a 
cautious criticism before the κατέχειν (1 Thess. y. 
21), and he requires it of all like Paul, Rom. xii. 
2; Phil. i. 20; Eph. v.10; LCor. x. 15; xi. 18, 
although some may have a special gift in discern 


CHAP. IV. 1-6. 


ing the spirits (1 Cor. xii. 10: διακρίσεις πνευμάτων 
Calvin: ‘‘alloguitur—singulos fideles,” as opposed 
to Lorinus: ‘*Non omnium est probare; unum 
oportet in ecclesia summum judicem questionum de fide 
moribusque ; id est sine dubio Pontifex Maximus.” 
[This may be conclusive reasoning to Romanists, 
but will be utterly repudiated by Protestants, as 
an arbitrary dictum repugnant to Holy Writ.— 
M.]. The falsity of this exposition is evident 
both from the object of this text which every man 
ought to know; εἰ ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐστίν, whether they 
are of, originate in or proceed from God: the 
confession of Jesus Christ come in the flesh (v. 
2), and from the danger, urging such a test, to 
which every one is exposed and which necessi- 
tates the decision [the Apostle proceeds to 
specify the reason why this trial is necessary.— 
M.]. 
ΠΣ ΕΣ many false prophets are gone 
out into the world.—These ψευδοπροφῆται an- 
swer tothe ἀντεχρίστοις (ch. ii. 18). Cf. Matth. vii. 
15; xxiv. 11, 24 (where also ψευδόχριστοι are spe- 
cified), 2 Pet. ii. 1 (where ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι are par- 
alleled with the ψευδοπροφῆται of the Old Testa- 
ment). The idea of predicting something future 
is not any more the prominent point here than it 
constitutes in general the leading characteristic 
of the prophet; he derives his name from 
πρόφημι, because he has, as it were, behind him 
the Spirit that inspires him, whose thoughts he 
speaks out and makes known. The true pro- 
phet must be clearly distinguished from the hid- 
den πνεῦμα influencing him, the true prophet is 
ὑπὸ πνευμάτος ἁγίου φερόμενος (2 Pet. i. 21); this 
πνεῦμα δύναμις ὑψίστου (Luke i. 35). The point at 
which He unites with the prophet, is the prophet’s 
πνεῦμα, Which as an organ to be influenced, must 
be clearly distinguished from the πνεῦμα ἅγιον 
who operates through it; for the πνεῦμα ayy is 
the Source and Principle of the revelation, en- 
ters into the prophet’s πνεῦμα, moves and imparts 
to the prophet, animates and prompts him, and 
thus the prophet’s πνεῦμα becomes a πνεῦμα ἐκ 
tov ϑεοῦ, yet so that thereby the characteristics of 
the prophet’s spirit are neither obliterated nor 
annulled, neither as to his temperament, nor as 
to his mode of utterance, nor as to qualification 
for specific relations of the spiritual or material 
worlds. Hence there are as many πνεύματα as 
there are προφῆται, notwithstanding the unity of 
the efficient principle which influences them. 
But alongside this πνεῦμα ἅγιον, πνεῦμα τῆς ἀλη- 
θείας, there is ἃ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου (Υ. 3), 
τῆς πλάνης (ν. 6), that makes the ψευδοπροφήτας 
and whose spirit must not be believed. The 
πνεῦμα and πνεύματα designate not absolutely 
ψευδοπροφῆται (Calvin, Liicke, de Wette and 
others), nor the sensus hominis aliquo modo inspira- 
tus (Socinus), nor doctrina (Episcopius), nor the 
superhuman principle animating man (Greek 
Comment., Augustine, Luther, Spener, Bengel 
(spiritui, quo doctor aliquis agitur), Neander, Diis- 
terdieck and others). Cf. Huther [whose note I 
have translated above, under ‘Believe not every 
spirit.” —M.].—With ἐξεληλύϑασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον 
Diisterdieck appropriately compares γεγόνασιν 
ch. ii. 18. After ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ we ought to supply 
a reference to the sending forth, the missionary 
activity which in the case of the false prophets 


133 


they come from, proceed, go out from him that 
makes them prophets. Cf. Jno. viil. 42; xiii. 8; 
Kyi. 27, etc. cf. ch. xvii. 18; Matth. xiii. 49. It 
is therefore neither—=in publicum prodire, as Matth. 
xiii. 8; xxvi. 55; Mark i. 3535 viii. 11; Acts vii. 
7 (Grotius, Calov, Liicke, al.), nor—ex apostolis 
et eorum ecclesia, as in ch. 11. 19 (S. Schmidt), 
nor=ex sedibus suis 2 Jno. 7. (Bengel).—On εἰς 
τὸν κόσμον cf. Jno. vi. 14; x. 36. They come into 
the world, which Christ was sent to redeem, 
which belongs to Him, in order to destroy it with 
their αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας. (2 Pet. ii. 1). 

The standard of tne trial. vv. 2, 3. 

Ver. 2. In this know ye the Spirit of 
God.— Ey τούτῳ here evidently points to the 
following sentence and γινώσκετε is not Indica- 
tive, but like πιστεύετε, δοκιμάζετε v. 1, the Impe- 
rative [on the other hand Alford, on account of 
the very frequent ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν, would let 
analogy prevail and take it as Indicative; but 
Huther, de Wette, Liicke and most commentators 
take it as Imperative.—M. ].—That τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ denotes the Holy Spirit is evident both from 
the expression itself and from the antithesis 76 
Tov ἀντιχρίστου v. 3; the reference therefore is 
not to a loquens de spiritualibus ex inspiratione divi- 
na (Lyra). But the sequel shows that we have 
to think of the Divine Spirit working in the 
spirit of the prophets, to wit: 

Every spirit which confesseth Jesus 
Christ come in the flesh, is of (οὔ .---Ὁμολο- 
γεῖν is the oral confession of a doctrinal truth 
(cf. 2 Jna. 10.), like ch. ii. 23 (Diisterdieck, 
Huther and al.); confession with a walk agree- 
ing with a Christian is not indicated here (Greek 
comm., Augustine, Bede), even though only a 
confession with the mouth emanating from the 
faith of the heart under the influence of the in- 
dwelling Spirit of God can be meant here, as in 
Rom. x. 9, 10; ef. ch. v. 11 sq.; 11. 22 sq.—The 
object of the confession: Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ 
ἐληλυθότα. The form is that of ἃ substantival ob- 
jective-sentence; hence the participial form 
should be retained, and the rendering avoided 
which would make it an Infinitive thus: that Je- 
sus Christ 7s or has come in the flesh; itis not a 
predicative sentence, but ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα is 
added attributively ; that which is known is added 
in the Accusative. The names are taken in their 
literal sense at ch. ii. 22; here they stand, as in 
ch. i. 3, in juxtaposition and must not be sepa- 
rated according to ch. ii. 22, as if they imported: 
Jesus the Christ who is come in the flesh; so 
Luther renders wrongly in his Scholia, and 
Huther inclines in that direction. In like man- 
ner ἐν σαρκὶ must be held fast and not be made 
equivalent to εἰς σάρκα, as maintained by Augus- 
tine, Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Sander and al.; 
ἐν σαρκὶ denotes the mode of existence, in which 
He appeared and came; nor is there any ground 
here to assume here a pregnancy common among 
the Greeks who conjoin év with verbs of motion 
in order to describe the result, the rest (cf. Winer, 
p. 449), to wit, that He had come into the flesh 
in order to remain and work zn the flesh; so 8. 
Schmidt and others.—Jesus Christ came 7 the 
flesh from the time of His birth after He σὰρξ 
ἐγένετο and ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (Jno. i. 14) ef. ch. 
i. 1. sqq.—The conversatio in carne, inter homines, in 


is an aping of the Apostles and the prophets; | vera natura humana, nor the incarnatio, which is 


134 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


pre-supposed as the transition, is meant here; 
nor is here a limiting reference to imnumera mala 
and ipsa cruenta mors, as maintained by Socinus, 
who erroneously refers to Heb, ii. 14; v. 7, and 
Grotius who adverts to a Hebraism.—’Epyeota 
indeed is often used to designate the appearance 
of teachers, but then it either occurs with a qual- 
ifying ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι, Matth. xxiv. 5, or ἐν 
τῷ ὀνόματι, Jno. v. 48, or εἰς μαρτυρίαν, Jno. i. 7, 
or with an indication of the subject as ἐμπαῖκται, 
2 Pet. iii. 3, or an addition like καὶ ταύτην τὴν 
διδαχὴν ov φέρει, 2 Jno. 10, or as in Matth. xi. 18, 
of John, ware ἐσϑίων pire πίνων or as in Matth. 
xvii. 11 of Elias καὶ ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα, so that 
the context invariably marks either the appear- 
ance of the teacher, or distinctly states that he is 
not exclusively referred to as a teacher, namely 
in his vocation of teacher. Here also the refer- 
ence seems not to be exclusively to the office of 
a teacher or a prophet, which is by no means in- 
dicated by ἐν σαρκὶ. But it isimportant to notice 
here the tense; for while we have in this place 
the part. perfecti ἐληλυθότα, ch. ν. 6 gives the part. 
aor. ὁ ἐλθὼν and 2 Jno. 7 the part. pres. ἐρχόμενον ; 
the Present denotes the fact which is not a single 
act, in a moment, like birth, but has a longer 
duration which may be seen and represents this 
in a timeless form; the Aorist denotes an act as 
purely historical, the Perfect an act which, 
though historically completed, has present con- 
tinuance (Winer, Part III. ¢ 40). Thus this con- 
fession contains the fundamental truth of the 
Gospel; Χριστὸς and ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα indicate 
the dignity and existence of the Son of God and 
emphatically assert His humanity as a reality 
and a historical fact for alltime. Bengel excel- 
lently remarks: ‘Jn carne, est ergo Ipse aliquid 
preter carnem; hereses veritatem carnis Jesu 
Christi negantes presupponunt et eo ipso confirmant 
DEITATEM éjus, guippe cum qua non poterant concilt- 
are carnem, tanquam ea dignam.” 

Ver. 3. And every spirit which con- 
fesses not Jesus, is not of God.—Tov ᾿'Τησοῦν 
comprehends what was said in y. 2, viz.; Χριστὸν 
ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, it is just the historical Christ 
and none other.—‘O μὴ duoAoyei=if he does not 
confess, while ὃ οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ would be—=who does 
not confess. From this it is evident that John 
contemplates not so much distinct persons, as 
only distinct doctrines. Winer, part III. ¢ 55. 
[ Huther observes that μὴ denotes the contradiction 
of the true confession, while οὐ would express 
only a simple denial.—M. ]. 

And this is the (spirit) of antichrist, of 
which ye have heard that it cometh, and 
now it isin the world already.—Toiro re- 
fers to πνεῦμα, not to ὁμολογεῖν, and τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίοσ- 
tov is the (πνεῦμα) of antichrist; for τὸ pre-sup- 
poses a substantive or constitutes a substantival 
idea; were it, as Valla, Episcopius, Huther and 
al. render, proprium antichristi, matter of anti- 
christ, τοῦτο would not refer to πνεῦμα but to 
ὁμολογεῖν ; this would be rather an artificial con- 
struction and τὸ before τοῦ ἀντίχριστου would be 
superfluous. The passages adduced, viz. Matth. 
xxi. 21; 1 Cor. x. 24; 2 Pet. ii. 22; Jas. iv. 14, 
are somewhat different, for they import one and 
all a substantival idea, τὸ τῆς συκῆς, τὸ ἑαυτοῦ, TO 
τῆς παροιμίας, τὸ τῆς αὔριον [that of the fig tree, 
that of himself, that of the proverb, the event of 


the morrow—M. ], while here the Genitive alone 
would have been sufficient.— Ακηκόατε refers not 
to the written word ch, ii. 18 where we have al- 
ready ἠκούσατε, but to the previous oral instruc- 
tion they had received. The last clause καὶ viv 
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶν ἤδη, Which emphatically asserts 
that the spirit of antichrist is already now, at the 
present time, working in the antichrists, is not goy- 
erned by ἀκηκόατε but codrdinated with καὶ τοῦτό 
ἐστίν τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου. Cf. ch. ii. 18. 

Comfortable strengthening and assurance against 
the false prophets. vy. 4-6. 

Ver. 4. Ye are of God, little children.— 
The Apostle moved, and affectionately confident 
(rexvia) that they all stand in the fundamental 
truth and are the children of God (ch. iii. 1, 2, 
18, 14), urgently represents to them (ὑμεῖς em- 
phatically placed first as in ch, ii. 24, 27), what 
is given to them: ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐστέ, agreeing with 
the leading thought ch. ii. 29 and the context: 
the trial to be made is εἰ ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐστίν (v. 1) 
and he that confesseth Jesus is ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐστίν 
(v. 8) and he that confesseth not Jesus ἐκ τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν. 

And have overcome them.—<Airovc are 
the Wevdorpopyrac (v. 1), in whom the πνεῦμα τοῦ 
ἀντιχρίστου is operative and connected with their 
πνεῦμα, Hence not: antichristum et mundum (Eras- 
mus); the Vulgate renders falsely ewm, which 
Lyra interprets: mundum, devincendo concupiscen- 
tiam, and other Roman Catholics: antichristum or 
spiritum antichristi in antichristis—The Perfect 
vevixjoate as at ch. ii. 18, 14, where τὸν πονηρόν 
is the person overcome. The victory referred to 
there is inward in their hearts, here it is a vic- 
tory not only in their hearts but also outward, 
visible in the life, in the sphere of their church- 
life, the Church; in the former place the victory 
is over Satan himself, here over his false pro- 
phets. But it is a victory actually achieved, and 
moreover a victory of continuous duration not- 
withstanding a succession of conflicts; through 
these very struggles and conflicts runs the victory 
already achieved and decisive, ye have overcome! 
ye have it! by your fidelity they with their se- 
ductive arts and temptations have been confounded 
(Ebrard). Cf. Jno. xvi. 33. Νενικήκατε is the 
Perfect not propter futuritionis certitudinem (Epis- 
copius),—potestis superare (Rosenmiiller). Calvin 
renders not very accurately: ‘‘In media pugnajam 
extra periculum sunt, quia futuri sunt superiores.” 
The ground of their victory and overcoming lies 
indeed in them, yet nevertheless above them. 

Because He (that is) in you is greater 
than he (that is) in the world.—'0 ἐν ὑμῖν is 
He of (out of) whom they are, who abideth in 
them (ch. iii. 24; iv. 1, 2), that is ὁ ϑεὸς (Greek 
Comm., Calvin, Bengel, de Wette, Sander, Diis- 
terdieck, Huther); this is also clear from the an- 
tithesis; it is understood of Christ by Augustine, 
Grotius, ete.—'O ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ---ὁ διάβολος, whose 
children (τέκνα) the antichrists are, ch. iii. 10a— 
God is not only greater than our heart (ch. iii. 
20), but also greater than Satan, than all things 
(Jno. x. 29; 2 Cor. ii. 14); all things belong to 
Him (1 Cor. xv. 57; iii. 28).—[Huther: ‘Instead 
of the more specific ἐν αὐτοῖς the Apostle uses ἐν 
τῷ κόσμῳ to intimate that the former, though 
having been for some time in the Church, belong 
to the κόσμος, which is expressly declared in the 


CHAP. IV. 1-6. 


Ε----ς-------------- -- - --πο--- - --»"ε-------ο----- EE eee 


words following. Socinus: ‘‘Quamvis Johannes, 
non de eo, qui sit in falsis prophetis, sed de eo, qui 
sit in mundo, verba faciat, tamen necesse est, ut mundi 
appellatione falsos istos Prophetas comprehendat, 
vel potius plane intelligat, quod satis aperte declarant 
sequentia verba.”—M. ]. 

Ver. 5. The antithesis as to essence, work and 
success: 

They are of the world.— Ek τοῦ κόσμου, 
quatenus Satanas est ejus princeps (Calvin), hence 
not ἐξ ἡμῶν (ch. ii. 19). Cf. Jno. viii. 23, 44. 
The reference is not only to worldly lusts and 
carnal desires but to the ground and source of 
their life determining the exhibition of their life 
(διὰ τοῦτο). 

Therefore they speak of the world and 
the world heareth them.—The substance of 
what they speak and their success with the world 
are conditioned by their being of [out of, from— 
as to origin—M.] the world. This λαλεῖν ἐκ τοῦ 
κόσμου also is deep-reaching: ex mundi vita ac sensu 
sermones suos promere (Bengel). Huther capi- 
tally distinguishes λαλεῖν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου from ἐκ 
τῆς γῆς λαλεῖν (Jno. iii. 81) by the remark that 
ἡ γῆ is not an ethical notion like ὁ κόσμος. Al- 
though the separate points made by Oecumenius 
(κατὰ τὰς σαρκικὰς ἐπιθυμίας), the Scholiasts (ἐκ τῆς 
πονηρᾶς αὐτῶν γνώμης), Luther (ea que mundus intel- 
ligit ae probat), Grotius (mundi affectibus congruen- 
tia) and others, are correct, yet they shed light 
only on particular points and not on the whole. 
The approval and agreement of the world consti- 
tute a proof against them on the principle τῷ yap 
ὁμοίῳ τὸ ὅμοιον προστρέχει. Cf. Jno. viii. 37, 48, 
Δ χα 57: [The false prophets left the 
Church and went out into the world to which they 
stood in inward affinity, and proclaimed to it a 
wisdom that originated in it; therefore the world 
heard them, i. e. approved and assented to their 
word; τῷ γὰρ ὁμοίῷ x. τ. 2. (Oecumenius); whereas 
the believers were hated and persecuted by 
the world, Huther.—M. ].—Airav ἀκούει denotes 
hearing attentively with inward delight, while 
ἀκούειν τινα signifies hearing in general without 
determining the sympathy of the hearer. 

Inference and conclusion. v. 6. 

Ver. 6. We are of God.—A quickly added 
contrast of the false prospects without δὲς After 
what precedes there are here implied the two 
thoughts which are not expressed: διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ 
Tov ϑεοῦ λαλοῦμεν καὶ ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν ἀκούετε, although 
the latter is indicated by ὁ γινώσκων τὸν ϑεὸν 
ἀκούει ἡμῶν. Hence the Apostle understands by 
ἡμεῖς himself with the Apostles and the teachers 
in the Church (and not himself and the Church 
ὑμεῖς), aS Opposed to αὐτοὶ (v. 5) and the wevdo- 
προφῆται (v. 1). This isthe view of most commen- 
tators in opposition to Calvin, Spener, Liicke and 
al. 

He that knoweth God, heareth us; he 
who is not of God doth not hear us.—The 
antithesis ὁ γινώσκων τὸν Sedv and ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν 
ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ requires, as is well known, that we 
should understand in the former clause ἐκ τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ εἶναι and supply in the second γινώσκειν τὸν 
ϑεὸν as the consequence. Hence ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ εἶναι 
must not be taken here differently from vv. 1--4 
and according to the contrast in v. 5. It is con- 
sequently not a general drawing and impulse tow- 
ards God (as held by Liicke and Neander), but 


135 


the state of grace of God’s children, and their 
understanding of and conduct towards the word 
of God as preached to them. But nothing is said 
here concerning the manner how they did come 
into this state, nor is here any reference to 
predetermination (Hilgenfeld) or predestination 
(Calvin); we know also from ch. ii. 2, iv. 14; ef. 
Jno. iii. 16: i. 10 sqq. 29, that all are desired 
and may enter into the sonship. [Alford: 
Here we must remember carefully what the 
context is and what its purpose. The Apostle is 
giving a text to distinguish, not the children of 
God from those who are not children of God, but 
the spirit of truth from the spirit of error, as is 
clear from the words following. And this he 
does by saying that in the case of the teachers of 
the truth, they are heard and received by those 
who apprehend God, but refused by those who 
are not of God. It is evident then that these two 
terms here, ὁ γινώσκων τὸν ϑεόν, and ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν 
ἐκ Tov ϑεοῦ represent two patent matters of fact, 
two classes open and patent to all: one of them 
identical with the κόσμος above: the other con- 
sisting of those of whom it is said above, ἐγνώκατε 
τὸν πατέρα... . ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ch. ii. 
13, 14. How these two classes are what they 
are, it is not the purpose of this passage to set 
forth, nor need we here inquire; we have else- 
where tests to distinguish them, ch. iii. 9,10. , 

- . 3 we have a striking parallel, in fact the key 
to these words, in the saying of our Lord to Pilate, 
John xviii. 37.—M. ]. 

From this we know the Spirit of truth 
and the spirit of error (deception).— Ex 
τούτου refers to hearing, but since the matter in 
hand relates to the trial of the spirits that teach, 
the reference is to hearing the false prophets and 
to hearing the Apostles and the ministers of the 
Divine word [ἡ. e. to the reception given to both 
classes.—M.]. Hence we must not think here of 
the criterion specified in vy. 2, 8, as maintained 
by the Roman Catholic Comm., Calvin, Hunnius, 
Calov and Neander. 

In γινώσκομεν John includes the Apostles and 
the Church. On τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, cf. 
Jno. xiv. 17; xv. 26; xvi. 13; from which pas- 
sages it is evident that the Genitive indicates 
that which the Spirit gives, testifies, whereto He 
helpeth and whither He guideth and leadeth; He 
is that Spirit that proceedeth from God and teach- 
eth the truth to men. In like manner, τὸ πνεῦμα 
τῆς πλάνης is the spirit proceeding from the deyil, 
deceiving and seducing men (ch. i. 8; ii. 26; 2 
Jno. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 1; 1 Thess. ii. 3; 2 Thess. 
ii. 11.) The latter is certainly in him whom the 
world hears, the former in Him to whom the chil- 
dren of God give ear. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Δοκεμάζειν is used here as by St. Paul, (see 
notes on υ. 1, in Exegetical and Critical) and as 
the Lord Himself bids His Church do, Matth. 
vii. 15, 16. The Roman Catholic proposition: 
‘‘Feclesia in suis prelatis est gudex controversiarum” 
is not true; they limit to the ecclesia repreesentans 
and to the [visible] head of that, what the Lord 
of the Church and his Apostles say to all believers. 
However it is important to remember that the 
Apostle restricts this right and duty of trial 


136 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


simply to the question whether the teachers are 
of God, and that he does not mean questions 
affecting the learning, wisdom or eloquence of 
teachers, or questions of secondary importance 
and on controversial points; he only refers to 
that which is necessary to the salvation of our 
souls. On this head every Christian ought and 
may, if necessary, apply the test. 

- 2. The believing Confession of One Jesus Christ 
uniting in Himself the Godhead and the Manhood, 
even the confession of the historical Christ is 
necessary to salvation and essentially Christian. 
John, of course, understands ὁμολογεῖν as engag- 
ing the powers of the whole Christian and not. 
only the oral confession without the heart; for he 
adverts to the πνεύματα, specifies the antithesis 
μὴ ὁμολογεῖν and proceeds throughout in a con- 
templative manner. If this were not so, the true 
disciples of Jesus would have the same confession 
as the demons as their distinguishing mark (Luke 
iv. 41; Matth. viii. 29); hence the contents of the 
confession are not decisive per se. Cf. Harless, 
Ethik ἢ 39** p. 174.—But Estius has no war- 
ranty for limiting St. John’s direction to the 
apostolical age and for considering the confession 
of the Lord’s Supper as the criterion now; on 
the former confession depends also the latter, for 
the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper reflects of course 
the Christology, since the fellowship with Christ 
is accomplished in the most pregnant manner in 
the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Nothing 
is truly Christian without the living Christ. 

8, According to the Johannean mode of ex- 
pression the contrast brought out here is to be 
conceived as an error wholly gnostic, spiritual- 
izing and misinterpreting the historic and di- 
rected more against the corporealness, 7. 6. the 
manhood of Christ than against his Godhead, an 
error rather Docetical than Ebionite. For σάρξ 
does not denote merely the human body apart 
from the human ψυχή, the human νοῦς, the human 
will or self-consciousness, which could not be 
done by the preposition ἐν, but it signifies the 
human nature, the manhood; and this is con- 
ceived in the precise manner in which He ap- 
peared in the world. Cf. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis 
ii. 1. p. 76, sq. 

4. John does not predicate of man independence, 
self-glory and perfect freedom in the sphere of 
his spiritual life; either the Spirit of God or the 
spirit of Satan determines the spirit of man and 
conditions his views, inclinations, knowledge, 
words and deeds. Behind the πνεῦμα of man 
stands the directing, determining, operating 
and fulfilling πνεῦμα, which through the former 
and united with it, works on the world and on men. 

5. But any disposition of the human spirit for 
the Spirit of God or the spirit of Satan is no 
more taken for granted here than that the Spirit 
of God and the spirit of Satan are or might be 
supposed to be ina state of codrdination. Rather, 
we should say, does this victory, of which the 
Apostle discourses in such lofty strains (v. 4, ef. 
ch, ii. 18, 14; v. 4, 5), assert the superiority of 
the Divine Spirit to Satan and denote both the 
monarchy of God and the enmity of Satan, at 
the same time intimating however, that, though 
men may suffer themselves to be controlled either 
by God or Satan, all men ought to be and might 
become God’s. 


6. The Apostle contemplates the reality and 
the possession of the Divine sonship (εἶναι ἐκ 
τοῦ ϑεουΞξεεγεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ), which is evident 
from his specification of the marks whereby the 
existence of this relation may be determined; 
the reference, therefore, is not to the origin, the 
beginning of one’s being of God, to the manner 
how it is attained. The same remark applies to 
Jno. xviii. 86, 37 and also to ch. viii. 43-47, as 
is manifest from v. 80: πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν 
and vy. 31: ἐὰν μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ. The 
sonship or state of grace of faith in Jno. viii. is 
however quite young and only begun, while the 
case before Pilate and in the passage under notice 
respects the believing people in His Kingdom and 
under His Rule. According to the Johannean 
conception we have to view the sonship or state 
of grace of believers as complete from the begin- 
ning although ever progressing towards perfection 
and consummation and to the inheritance itself. 
A young babe or a suckling is surely a perfect man, 
a rational creature, though only as to the germ, 
and not yet aman, not yet fully developed in all 
the powers and gifts wherewith it is endowed. 

[7. As supplemental to the exegetical notes on 
y. 3, and No. 8, above, it may be profitable to put 
together some of the interpretations of this diffi- 
cult passage. 

1. The Socinian.—Socinus: ‘‘Jesum Christum, 
i.e. JSesum qui dicitur Christus, non modo 
mortalem hominem fuisse, sed etiam innumeris 
malis et denique ipsi cruentz mortiobnoxium.” 
Grotius: ‘‘ Von cum regia pompa et exer- 
citibus, sed in statu humili, abjecto, mul- 
tisgue malis ac postremum cruci obnoxio.” 
But it has been shown that ἐν σαρκί cannot 
be construed in this sense. 

2. Those assertive and not only implicative 
of our Lord’s Incarnation. The commen- 
tators, most of them orthodox, who give 
this interpretation, either confound ἐν 
σαρκί with εἰς σάρκα (Augustine, Luther, 
Calvin, Piscator, Sander andal.), or waver 
between ἐν and εἰς, 6. g. Hunnius: ‘*Zune 
venire in carne dicitur Jesus Christus quando 
λόγος ex sua velut arcana sede prodiens as- 
sumta visibili carne se in terris manifestat. 
Here we must also name the exposition 
of Augustine, who introduces in the train 
of the Incarnation the death and redeem- 
ing love of Christ, and makes the confes- 
sion denial depend on ‘‘ caritatem habere”’ 
(Alford); saying: ‘ Deus erat et in carne 
venit: Deus enim mori non poterat, caro 
mori poterat: ideo ergo venit in carne ut 
moreretur pro nobis. Quemadmodum autem 
mortuus est pro nobis 3 Majorem hac carita- 
tem nemo habet, quam ut animam suam ponat 
pro amicis suis. Caritas ergo illum adduxit 
ad crucem. Quisquis ergo non habet carita- 
tem, negat Christum in carne venisse.”—To 
put the question in his own words; ‘‘Arius 
and Eunomius, and Macedonius and Nes- 
torius own that Jesus Christ came in the 
flesh, are not they therefore of God?” and 
then replies that those hierarchs did not 
in fact confess Christ to have come in the 
flesh, because whatever they might do by 
words, they in their works denied Him 
(Tit. i. 16). ‘They have not charity,” he 


CHAP, IV. 1-6. 


137 


says ‘‘because they have not wnity, and: the Christian religion is founded on credulity ! 
therefore all their other gifts are of no | Gross lies! it requires faith, but rejects credulity. 


avail.” (1 Cor. xiii. 1-3).—But the 
Apostle says here nothing of charity, or 
unity, or of the love of Christ, but he 
simply asserts the true Manhood of our 
Lord, and this brings us 

3. To the true interpretation which takes 
ἐν in its proper meaning and applies the 
passage to the case of the Docete who 
maintained that our Lord had only an 
apparent and not a real body. See also 
the extracts from Irenzus and Origen 
above in Appar. Crit. note 4.—M. ]. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The command: Try! 1. The occasion (v. 1: 
many false prophets); 2. The importance (v. 1: 
whether they are of God); 3. The difficulty (v. 1: 
the spirits); 4. The right (v. 4: ye are of God); 
5. The standard (vv. 1, ὃ: the confession and 
the contradiction, cf. v. 6.).—Be not afraid of 
the majority of votes, but tear the majesty of the 
truth of (out of) God; take care that thou do not 
violate it; the former cannot and must not have 
any influence in matters of eternal truth and of 
eternal life. Not from the masses comes the 
truth, but from One, with whom you ought to vote 
and to whom you ought to assent; but though it 
comes only from One it is nevertheless designed 
for all and should be brought to and diffused 
among the masses by means of preaching, testi- 
mony and confession.—You ought to regard as a 
Christian and a brother whoever clings to Christ 
in faith, no matter how heretical the sect to 
which he may belong.—Communities and Chris- 
tians grow more and more imperfect, the former 
into sects and the latter illiberal in propor- 
tion as they strive to give undue prominence to 
any one point of the truth except that of a be- 
lieving and vital confession of Christ. You may 
not even push into the background the sphere of 
creation with its appointments before redemption 
and its glory, for Christ is also the Creator of 
the world.—The question is the pursuit of victory 
in order to secure and preserve unimpaired 
eternal peace for eternity.—The fundamental 
truth is simple and ever plain to the simplicity 
of the heart. That with which you are familiar 
you understand and love; what you cling to, 
cleaves to you; that in which you live, lives in 
you; that, for and of which you speak, speaks 
out of you.—Hither a prophet of God or a false 

. prophet, either of God or of the world, moved 
either by the Spirit of God or by the spirit of 
antichrist, by the Spirit of truth or the spirit of 
error; a middle way and a third course are not 
provided.—Neither you nor any of your acquaint- 
ance may be able clearly to perceive your point 
of gravity, but it is there, and One, now a Saviour, 
but hereafter the Judge, knows where and what 
it is and will make it manifest in preliminary 
judgments here, but in the final judgment there. 

Starke :—Trust, believe, whom? It concerns 
not riches and possessions, but your soul and 
salvation. It is amazing that most men are 
concerned about false wares, whereby they in- 
cur certain and eternal loss. The prudent will 
make inquiries and not join in with an incon- 
siderate credit.—Lying spirit, that sayest that 


—We ought to believe sincere, experienced and 
honest teachers, yet so that we look only and 
solely to God and rest in Him as the author 
of the wisdom which they proclaim. Teachers 
should willingly subject their teaching to the 
trial of others, even to the trial of their own 
hearers, and consequently not only not deter 
them from it but also to urge them to it, and 
direct them away from themselves to God and 
His Spirit; otherwise they will not make honest 
Christians but render themselves suspicious.— 
The government alone has not the power of ap- 
pointing teachers at its option regardless of the 
views and wishes of the whole Church (or con- 
gregation), whose wishes should be duly con- 
sulted, for God has clothed it also with the power 
and ability to try the spirits. [Such a caution, 
however relevant on the Continent of Europe, is 
of course unnecessary in the U. S.—M. ].—What- 
ever obscures and lessens in word or deed the 
person, office, doctrine and glory of Christ, is 
heretical—Be of good courage? though the 
world and the devil rage, thou hast a strong sup- 
port, for God, who is with, by and in thee, is 
greater than all.—Whenever we are victorious, 
we ought to ascribe the glory of our victory not 
to ourselves but to God; otherwise if we take 
the least credit to ourselves, we rouse a new 
enemy, spiritual pride, most dangerous in this 
that it enables Satan easily to overcome us.— 
Like seeks like; the world loves its own but hates 
those who have gone out from the world. 

Heusner:—The Christian spirit of trial is in- 
timately connected with faith. Faith is not 
credulity.—This trying is a duty which belongs 
to every age and especially in our age when so 
many teach against the Scripture and still set up 
the pretension that they have the Spirit, and 
consider themselves full of spirit and others 
spiritless. It is the duty of all Christians; con- 
sequently, also the duty of the laity.—The con- 
ditions of this trial are simplicity of heart, a firm 
faith, and prayer to the Lord for clearness of 
perception (to open our eyes). The deceived 
have indeed excuses to offer; but there would 
not be so many of the deceived, if they hada 
pure mind and would try. Try the more fre- 
quently and carefully, the more the spirit of 
deceivers flatters thee and thy vanity, and the 
greater the number of these spirits grow.— 
Everything which lays irreverent hands on the 
Person of Christ, from any side, is decidedly un- 
christian.—Should John have given us a false 
criterion? Maintaining this is already the sign 
of a badcause. Whatever is anti-christian shows 
its true character by its contradicting the Apos- 
tles —The superiority of the Spirit of Christ to 
the error-spirit of the world gives to the Chris- 
tian the preponderance; he need not fear any 
assaults of unbelief. John foretells certain vic- 
tory. All the shouts of victory on the part of 
unbelievers are nothing but false alarm. All 
antichristianity panders to the spirit of the 
world; it flatters, if not the loose morality, yet 
the vanity and conceit of the world which finds 
it burdensome and confounding to believe in the 
Crucified One.—The false apostles prove the dig- 
nity of the true Apostles. 


138 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Bersser:—Any pupil in a catechism-class, in 
order to be on his guard against the false pro- 
phets, may determine whether the teaching of 
a prophet has the grape-taste of Christ’s vine 
or the sloe-taste of the thorn of the flesh and 
reason.—It is not because of the parts of the 
truth they hold in common with the Church, but 
because of the error wherewith they contradict 
the confession of the Church, because of the 
broken branch on the tree of truth, because of 
the cancer in the body of truth, that the sects 
are congregated as separate communities. 

KruMMACHER:—The frontier of Christianity. 1. 
In which way is it decided? Are the cumbersome 
trinity, God, virtue and immortality, or birth with- 
in the pale of Christendom, individual interpre- 
tation, the opinion of the majority of one’s con- 
temporaries—to determine Christianness? 2. 
The final infallible decision, over against the skep- 
tics, those who are at variance with the confes- 
sions, those who only seek for the word of God 
in the Scriptures but do not receive the Scrip- 
tures as the word of God, is given by the funda- 
mental fact of the supernatural revelation in Christ, 
the necessity of regeneration, the personal preéx- 
tstence of Christ or of the Godhead. 


FRONMULLER:—Of the trial of the Spirits. 1. 
Why it is necessary? Many false spirits have 
gone out into the world, the spirit of antichrist 
is already now in the world—in the Church, in 
the school, in the family, in private life, in the 
great andinthe small. 2. Which is its end and 
aim? Whether they are of God or not. 3. 
Which is its rule? The confession. 

[Burxirr: v. 1.—Believe not every spirit, ete. 
That is, every teacher who pretends to be in- 
spired, and every doctrine that lays claim to the 
authority of Divine revelation: ‘but try the spir- 
its,” that is, examine their doctrine by the rule 
of the word of God, and try from whom they 
come, whether from the Spirit of God or from 
Satan.—M. }. 

[Br. Hatu: v. 2.—Every one who confesseth 
Jesus Christ to have been God from all eternity, 
and in the fulness of time to have taken our na- 
ture upon Him, and to be come in the flesh, to 
accomplish the perfect work of man’s redemp- 
tion, is of God and speaks from God. And so by 
the contraries v. 3.—M. ]. 

Bceenegt Era was not only (as the Gnostics 
and some other heretics have conceited) in shape 
and outward appearance (as a spectre, deluding 
men’s sight and fancy), but in most real truth, a 
very perfect man; having a real body, figured 
and circumscribed like ours, compacted of flesh 
and blood, visible and tangible; which was nour- 
ished and did grow, which needed and received 
sustenance, which was tender and sensible, frail 
and passible, which was bruised with stripes, 
torn with scourges, pricked with thorns, pierced 
with nails, transfixed with a spear; which was 
mortal and underwent death by expiring its 
breath, and being disjoined from the soul that 
enlivened it. He had also a soul, endued with 
the same faculties as ours; with an understand- 
ing. capable of learning and improvement (for 
He was a man, ignorant of some things which 
He might know: and Je grew in wisdom and in 
stature), with a will, subject and submissive to 
the Divine Will (see Mark xiii. 832; Luke ii. 52; 


Matth. xxvi. 39; Luke xxii. 42; Jno. vy. 30; 
Matth. xxi. 18; Jno. iv. 6, 7), with several ap- 
petites, of meat, of drink, of sleep and rest (for 
we read that He was hungry, that He thirsted, 
that He was weary), yea with various passions 
and affections (φυσικὰ καὶ ἀδιάβλητα πάθη, I mean, 
that is, natural and irreprehensible passions), 
and these of the most troublesome and afflictive 
sort, such as zeal, pity and sorrow; the which 
were sometimes declared by very pathetical sig- 
nifications and are expressed in high terms; as 
upon occasion of His friend Lazarus’s death it is 
said, He groaned in Spirit and was troubled; He 
then and upon other occasions, out of pity and 
sorrow, did weep; and ye know what excesses of 
sorrow, what anxieties and agonies, what tribu- 
lations, disturbances and amazements, the Evan- 
gelists, using those very terms, describe Him to 
have undergone at His passion; so that, as the 
Apostle to the Hebrews speaketh, ‘* We have not an 
highpriest that could not compassionate (or sympa- 
thize with) our infirmities, but who was in all points 
tempted (or exercised and proved) as we are, yet 
without sin.” —M. ]. 

[NeanpER:—Here is no other test of true 
faith, no other law for Christian union, than 
steadfast adherence to that one fundamental fact 
of the appearing of the Divine-human Redeemer. 
In all which proceeds from this belief, the influ- 
ences of the Divine Spirit should be acknowl- 
edged. Hence it follows, that provided faith in 
this one fundamental fact be the soul of the 
Christian life, no minor difference of creed should 
be allowed to disturb Christian unity; that mis- 
takes and alloys of Christian truth, which trench 
not on this one fundamental fact, should not hin- 
der us from recognizing the Divine Stamp in him 
whose faith and profession have their root 
therein,—that the bonds of Christian fellowship 
should not thereby be sundered or loosened. 
Steadfast adherence to this one foundation is the 
mark of being from God, of the Spirit derived 
from God.— 

Truth and error haye each their peculiar his- 
tory of development. As in the continued devel- 
opment of Christian truth, the Holy Spirit is 
ever revealing Himself in the inward censcious- 
ness of believers, that Anointing spoken of by St. 
John; so does error, proceeding side by side with 
this revelation, mingle therewith its own dis- 
turbing and adulterating influence,—rending 
single truths from their connection with the 
whole system of truth and giving them the stamp 
of error. These are the two currents, proceed- 
ing from the ever operative Spirit of Christ and 
from the spirit of the world; the latter mingling 
with the revelations of the former its own dis- 
turbing element and imitating them with a de- 
ceptive outward seeming.—M. ]. 


[Sermons and Sermon-themes. 

v. 1. AvaustinE, Believe not every Spirit. 
Libr. of Fathers, 20. 954. 

Tittotson, Asp. Of the trial of the 
Spirits. Sermons 2, 29, 

WATERLAND, DaniEL, The springs and 
motives of false pretences 

to the Holy Spirit; with 

the rules and marks of 

trying and detecting them, 

Sermons. Works 9, 336. 


CHAP. IV. 7-21. 


139 


Epwarps, JonatHAN, The distinguish- 
ing marks of a work of the 
Spirit of God, applied to 
that uncommon operation 
that has lately appeared 
in New England. 120. 
1742. Works. 2, 254. 

ZouuiKorFer, C. J. Lanaticism in ge- 
neral, 
Fanaticism with regard to 


y. 2. AuaustTinE, Every Spirit that confesseth 
not, etc. Libr. of the 
Fathers 20, 960. 
De probatione Spiritum. 
Cr. Sac. Thes. Nov. 2. 999. 
vy. 2, 3. Winperrorce, R. 1., The sacramental 
system. Serm. on the 
New Birth, 222. 
Vauauan, I. C., John’s test of truth. 
Sermons (1851), 121. 


religious conceptions im γ. 4. Saurin, I., The superior evidence and 
particular. Sermons on influence of Christianity. 
prevalent errors and Sermons; 2, 323. In 


vices I. 95, 111. 

Smit, Joun Pye, On the means of ob- 
taining satisfaction with 
regard to the truth of reli- 
gious sentiments. A Ser- 
mon, London, 1822. 


French, 7, 129. 
Extraordinary gifts of the 
Holy Ghost. 

vy. 4, 5. Trntotson, ΑΒΡ., Zhe advantages of 
truth in opposition to error. 
2 Sermons. Serm. XI. 
389.—M. ]. 


7. Brotherly love and Divine love as related to each other on the ground of Christ’s advent. 
CuarTeR LV. 7-21. 


Beloved, let us love one another: for! love is of God; and every one that loveth? is 
born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth*® not God;‘* for God is 
love. In this was manifested the love of God toward” us, because’ that God sent his 
only begotten Son® into the world, that we might live through him. Herein’ 155 love, 
not that we loved God, but that he® loved us, and sent” his Son to be the propitiation 
for our sins." Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 
No man hath seen God at any time.” If we love one another, God dwelleth™ in us, 
and his love is perfected in τι. Hereby’ know we that we dwell’® in him, and he in 
us, because’ he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that 
the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world? Whosoever's shall confess! 
that Jesus” is the Son of God, God dwelleth® in him, and he in God. And we have 
known and believed the love that God hath to” us. God is love; and he that dwell- 
eth” in love dwelleth* in God, and God in him.” Herein® is our love* made per- 
fect,” that we may haye boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, 5055 are we 
in this world. ‘There is no fear in love;” but perfect love casteth out fear: because 
fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.® We love him,” 
because he first loved us. Ifa man say,*! I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a 
liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how®™ can he love God 
whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who 
loveth God love his brother also.* 


Verse 7. {1 German: “The love.’—M.] 
πᾶς ὃ ἀγαπῶν without τὸν θεὸν, B.C. Sin. al—A. adds τὸν θ εὸ ν. 
Verse 8. [8 German: “ Knew not God;” Alford: “hath never known God;’ Liicke “hath never learned to know Him 
at all.’ The force of the Aorist that he hath not once known God should be brought out.—M.] 
ὃ μὴ ἀγαπῶν οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν θεὸν is wanting in Cod. Sin., but adds ἔγνωκεν instead of γινώσ- 
κει (from ν. 7). A. 
Verse 9. [Ὁ ἐν Hucv—German: “in us” (an uns) “in regard to us.” Alford —M.] 
ὃ ὅτι, not “because” but “that;” so German, Alford, Lillie—M.] 
6 German: “ His Son, the only begotten.”—M. | 
Verse 10. [7 ἐν τούτῳ; render “In this” as in νυ. 9. instead of the unnecessary variation “herein” of Εἰ. V.—M.] 
[8 German: “ exists” Wordsworth “ consists.”—M.] 
9α ὑτὸ ς, the most authentic reading; A has ἐκεῖνος. 
10 Instead of ἀπεστείλεν, Cod. Sin. reads ἀ πέσταλκεν as in vv. 9, 14. 
[2 German: “And sent His Son as propitiation for our sins.” More correctly: “And sent His Son a propitia- 
tion for our sins.” No need for the supplement ἐο be in E. V.—M. 
Verse 12 [12 German: “God hath no one ever seen.” Alford: “God hath no one ever beheld.” 
matically: ‘No one has ever beheld God.”—M.] 
[3 μένει, μένομεν, etc., had better be rendered uniformly “abide.”—M.] 


But render more idio- 


140 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


14 There is a great variation in the readings of the final words: ἐν ἡμῖν before τετελειωμένη ἐστίν 
A. Vulg; ἐν ἡμῖν αἰτοῦ τετελειωμένη ἐστίν G.K.and many versions; ἐν ἡμῖν between tered. 
and ἐστίν Cod. Sin. B. [Alford: The love of Him is perfected in us.—M.} 


Verse 13. Πό ἐν rov tw=“ In this.” 


16 German: “ that.”—M.] 


See note 7 above.—M.] 


Verse 14. ΠΤ German: “As Saviour of the world.” 80. Alford, Lillie. No need for the supplement fo be in E. V.—M.] 


Verse 15. 18 Instead of ὃς av, B. reads éav. 


[19 German: “confesseth;’ so Alford who justly objects to all Futures “shall confess,” and Futuri exacti 
“shall have confessed” and recommends the English Present with an exegesis,—viz., “ that this Present 
betokens not a repeated act and habit, but a great act once for all introducing the man into a state of 


ὁμολογῆσαι. --Μ.] 
30 B.adds Χριστός after Ἰησοῦς. 


Verse 16. [31 ἐν ἡμῖν. German: “an uns” literally “at or on us” to which “concerning us” or “in regard to us” 


come nearest.—M. 


2 B.G. K.Ood. Sin. add μένει, which owing to the same conclusion of the preceding verse was more likely 


to be omitted than added. 


Verse 17. [ “In this.” See note 7 above.—M.] 


34 Cod. Sin. adds ἐν ἡμῖν after μεθ᾽ ἡ μῶν, probably an error (with reference to v.12) as ἐν ἀγάπῃ 


τῆς κρίσεως is plainly a slip of the pen. 
[35 German: “In this love with us is perfected;” Alford: “In this is love perfected with us.” 


The render- 


ing “our” of E. V. is almost solitary and should be changed. See below in Exeget. and Critical—M.] 


[35 German: “ Because as He is, we also are in this world.” 


“Are we also, etc.”—M.] 


Verse 18. [27 German: “ Fear is not in love.” 


So Alford and Lillie, who transpose, however: 


Alford: “Fear existeth not, etc.”—M. 


28 German: “ Punishment;” so Lillie, see note in Exeget. and Critical —M. 
29 German: “Is not perfected in love.” Alford: “ Hath not been perfected in [His] love.”—M.] 
Verse 19. 80 Cod. Sin. reads τὸν θεὸν after ἀγαπῶμεν; ἃ. Κ. αὐτὸν [Α. B. omit either—M.} A inserts οὖν 


after ἡμεῖς. 
(German: “ We love God.”—M.] 
Verse 20. [81 German: “If one says hateth 


ὋΣ πῶς, A. [K. L. al. Tischend. Alford—M.]; οὖ, B. Cod. Sin. 


hate ?_M. 


Translate: “If anysay .. . iio Pie . 
{Lach. Buttm. al—M.] The true reading can- 


not be determined by the analogy with ch. iii. 17 (Diisterdieck), or by the consideration that the interrog- 
ativé is more expressive than the negative (Huther). 
{German: “ How can he love God (or: cannot love God) whom he hath not seen?”—M. 

Verse 21. [33 German: “Also love his brother.” Doddridge—‘ Love also his brother ” Alford, Lillie.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Connection. The whole section vv. 7-21 insists 
upon the exhibition of brotherly love, because 
love is the very Essence of God (vv. 8, 16), as is 
evident from the sending and revelation of His 
Son (vv. 8, 10, 11, 14, 15), from our past and pre- 
sent experience of the love of God (vv. 10, 11, 
16), from the experience of our confidence to- 
wards Him without fear (vv. 17, 18), and because 
as the children of God, we ought in grateful 
obedience prove our enjoyment of such love by 
the love of our brethren, His children (vv. 19-21). 
Based on the γεννηϑῆναι ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ (v. 7), this 
exhortation belongs under the great leading 
thought ch. ii. 29, and connects with the warning 
against the false teachers, because faith in Jesus, 
in whom the love of the Father has been mani- 
fested and brought near to us, and the fellow- 
ship of the Holy Spirit (v. 13), the Spirit of truth 
and the Witness of God’s love in us, must evi- 
dence and manifest their truth and vitality in 
brotherly love. 

Exhortation to brotherly love founded on the 
Being of God. vv. 7, 8. 

Ver. 7. Beloved, let us love one another. 
—'Ayarnrol, ἀγαπῶμεν, a very emphatic expres- 
sion; being loved we must love; being in the 
enjoyment of love we are and dare not be without 
love; the exhortation, as ἀλλήλους shows, must 
be restricted to brotherly [Christian—M.] love 
and not be extended to general love of man. 
{But the ground, on which this exortation is 
based, viz. that God is Love (vy. 8) and that He 
sent His Son εἰς τὸν κόσμον (vy. 9), shows that the 
love of man in general is not excluded here. Cf. 
ch. iii. 18; so Ebrard.—M.]}. 

Because the love is of God, and every 
one, that loveth, is born of God and 
knoweth 6οᾶ.-- Ὅτι indicates the ground on 
which the preceding exhortation is made to rest. 


axiom of truth: Omnis amor ex Deo est (Bengel), 
originem habet a Deo (Calov). This thought espec- 
ially strengthened by éx, must not be weakened 
into: caritas res divina maxime laudabilis (Socinus, 
Episcopius), Deo maxime placet (Grotius), love is 
Divine as to its nature (de Wette), Deus caritatis 
auctor est, quatenus nobis mutue caritatis causas 
abunde suppeditat (Schlichting). Neither must 
we add with A. τὸν ϑεὸν, nor supply “the brother” 
with S. Schmidt, Liicke and al.—[Didymus sin- 
gularly understood ἀγαπή here of Christ,—7riva 
οὐκ ἄλλην εἶναι νομιστέον ἢ τὸν μονογενῆ, ὥσπερ ϑεὸν 
ἐκ ϑεοῦ, οὕτω καὶ ἀγάπην ἐξ ἀγάπης dvtTa:—and Au- 
gustine fitting together “7 ]εοίίο est ex Deo,” and 
“‘Dilectio est Deus” infers that ‘‘Dilectio est Deus 
ex Deo,” which comparing with Rom. y. 5, he 
infers that love is the Holy Spirit (Tract. vii. 6). 
Alford—M. ].—Now since love and life are and 
spring from God, a man that is born of God 
proves that he is born of God by loving; for he 
must have part of that which is in God and comes 
from Him. The Perfect also alongside the Present 
shows that here again being born of God is re- 
garded as the antecedent fact, as the cause of 
love, and love as a consequence warrants and 
necessitates the back-inference of the truth and 
reality of being born of God. Cf. ch. ii, 29. 
Every one that is born of God knows also in his 
belonging to God, in his fellowship with God, 
God as the Source of love, and love as the Essence 
of God, and hence he must insist upon love and 
practise love, so that thereby he may prove his 
knowledge of and familiarity with God; to love 
and to know God are correlates, because love is 
of God. Hence Grotius (ostendit se Deum nosse 
sicut oportet) errs less than Calvin (vera Dei cog- 
nitio amorem Dei necessario in nobis generat). 

Ver. 8. He that loveth not hath never 
known God.—Consequently: he that lacks 
love in general, has not known God, has never 
learnt to know Him at all (Liicke), has never 
made even the beginning of the knowledge of God 


The demonstration is conducted on a παν ἢ (Diisterdieck); this rendering is required by the 


CHAP. 


Aorist ἔγνω joined to ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν. The reason of 
this is given in the following: 

Because God is love.—A proposition which 
in the negative formula, according to the well- 
known manner of the Apostle, still further de- 
fines the former assertion that ‘‘love is of God.” 
This relation of the two propositions and of their 
contents requires us to give to ὅτε a causal con- 
struction; hence it indicates the reason and not 
the contents of ἔγνω (Tirinus: non novit, Deum 
esse caritatem) ; in that case ὁ ϑεὸς also ought to 
be wanting and it would be: οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν ϑεόν, 
ὅτι ἀγάπη ἐστίν. Cf. Acts xiv. 13. Winer, p. 469. 
Ὃ ϑεὸς ἀγάπη éotiv==Deus nihil est quam mera 
caritas (Luther ), Dei natura nihil aliud est, quam ca- 
ritas, quam bonitas, quam summum bonum, sui ipsius 
communicativum (Hunnius). The Being of God is 
Love; therefore love springs from God. The word 
is to be taken essentialiter with most Catholic 
[Anglican—M.] and Lutheran Commentators, 
and not ἐνεργητικῶς with Calvin and Beza: Dez 
natura est homines diligere; for this construction 
makes God’s Love-Hssence give place to God’s 
manifestation of love and adds the limitation of its 
application to men, whereas angels and even the 
Trinitarian God are objects of the love of God. 
Still farther removed from the depth of this say- 
ing, even to shallowness, are the expositions of 
Socinus (caritas est Dei ipsiusque voluntas effectus 
et is quidem maxime proprius), Grotius (Deus est 
plenus caritate), Rosenmiiller (benignissimus). In 
this, that God is love as to His essential Being, 
lies the reason, why he that is born of God, must 
also have love and live in love and why the love 
of God must be allied with the love of the breth- 
ren who are also born of God. [Equally shallow 
are the explanations of Benson: ‘‘God is the 
most benevolent of all beings; full of love to all 
His creatures,” Whitby: ‘The Apostle intends 
not to express what God isin His Essence . . but 
what He is demonstrative, ἐνεργητικῶς, showing 
great philanthropy to men,” and Hammond ‘ God 
is made up of love and kindness to mankind.””— 
Alford reviewing these quotations says that in 
them the whole force of the axiom as it stands in 
the Apostle’s argument is lost; ‘‘unless he is 
speaking of the Essential Being of God, guorswm 
pertineat, to say that he that loveth not never 
knew God, because ‘‘ God is love?” Put for these 
last words, ‘‘God is loving,” and we get at once 
a fallacy of an undistributed middle: He that 
loveth not never knew what love is: God is lov- 
ing: but what would follow? that in as far as 
God is loving, he never knew Him: but he may 
have known Him as far as He is just or power- 
ful. But take 6 ϑεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν of God’s essen- 
tial Being,—as a strict definition of God, and 
the argumentation will be strict: He that loveth 
not never knew love: God is love [the terms 
are co-essential and co-extensive]: therefore he 
who loveth not never knew God.””—M. ]. 

Revelation of the love of God through Christ. vv. 
9, 10. 

Ver. 9. In this was manifested the love 
of God in (on) us.—‘ We hear the lovely, the 
living echo of Christ, Jno. iii. 16.” (Heubner). 
Ἔν τούτῳ points to the sequel. ᾿Εφανερώϑη as 
contrasted with the hidden Being of the invisible 
God, annexes the objective, actual appearing 
and manifestation of the ἀγάπη τοῦ ϑεοῦ, of the 


IV. 7-21. 141 


love which is God’s, in God, as in ch. i. 2; iii, 
5; 1 Tim. iii. 16; there is no reference what- 
ever to subjective knowledge. [Huther: ‘The 
Apostle does not want to say that the love of God 
has been known by us through the sending of His 
Son; cf. v. 16, but that therein it stepped forth 
from its concealment, and did in reality manifest 
itself.””—M.].—'Ev ἡμῖν defines either the sphere 
in which, or the object αὐ which [with regard to 
which—M.] the manifestation took place; it 
should be connected with the verb and rendered, 
either among us, with us, or at [in, with regard 
to] us. But the coatext does not introduce us 
merely as spectators but as receivers of the Di- 
vine love (iva ζήσωμεν) ; and this love is not only 
to us an object of contemplation, which would be 
expressed by the Dative ἡμῖν without the prep- 
osition; but we ourselves are objects of this 
love, every one of us believers has experienced 
it; hence we ought not to leave the matter unde- 
cided (Liicke), but must decide for the rendering 
at [in, with regard to—M.] us (Diisterdieck), 
according to the manifest analogy of Jno. ix. 3, 
where év must be thus construed and explained; 
hence we may not connect it with ἀγάπῃ τοῦ ϑεοῦ 
(Huther and al.); for it was not the love of God 
in believers which was manifested, as if the be- 
lievers existed before the manifestation of God’s 
love in Christ, but the love of God appeared in 
Christ and was manifested not to, but αὐ [in] the 
believers. On this account Bengel’s explanation: 
“Amor Dei, qui nunc in nobis est,” 1s equally un- 
tenable. Still less admissible is it to make ἐν 
ἡμῖν-εςεὶς ἡμᾶς, as is done by Luther, Spener and 
al. Cf. Winer, pp. 231, 486.—Egavepody is ex- 
plained by what follows: 

That God hath sent His son, the only- 
begotten, into the world. 

This is the fact of the manifestation. The 
designation τὸν μονογενῆ the only child (Luke vii. 
12; viii. 42; ix.«88; Heb. xi. 17; Jno. i. 14, 18; 
ili. 18), ad auxesin valet (Calvin); what love, that 
He sent His only son (Huther)! It is therefore 
not=ayaryréc, omnium creaturarum longe carissi- 
mus, sibi dilectissimus (ὃ. G. Lange, Socinus, Gro- 
tius). John thus marks the exaltation of the 
Son, just as the term ἀπέσταλκεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον 
denotes His pre-existence (Jno. iii. 17; x. 36): 
to be sent, to be sent into the world can only be 
true of one already born, not of one who is only 
born in the world, but one existing above and 
before the world, 1 Jno. i. 1. 

That we might live through Him.—Thus 
ἐν ἡμῖν is explained. This indication of the pur- 
pose, ἵνα, points as much to the life-fulness in 
Christ as to our poverty. Cf. ch. iii. 16, 17. 
[Baumgarten-Crusius: Μονογενής and ζήσομεν are 
the two emphatic words: The most exalted One 
—for our salvation !—M. ]. 

Ver. 10. In this exists love.—[German like 
Greek ‘‘the love,” ἡ. 6. love in the abstract.—M. ]. 
᾿Αγάπη is to be taken quite general, as at ch. iii. 
16 (Neander, Diisterdieck, Huther), without the 
supplement of τοῦ ϑεοῦ (Spener, Liicke, Sander, 
de Wette, Briickner and al.), as at Rom. vy. 5. 

Not that we loved God, but that He 
loved us.—The simplest construction is to sup- 
ply ἐν τοὐτῷ to οὐχ and ἀλλά. Thus preparation 
is made for the comprehensive term πρῶτος v. 19; 
the initiation of loving is with God; the beginning 


142 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


and origin of love is in God (ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ) ; ἡμεῖς 
and αὐτὸς are here emphatically contrasted like 
τὸν ϑεόν; amari dignissimum, and ἡμᾶς, indignissi- 
mos (Bengel), the self-existence, independence, 
of the Divine love are intimated by the prevenience 
of that love absolutely unconditioned by any 
merit on the part of men; the former is what is 
really said here (Huther), the other, as we may 
justly infer from what follows, (ἱλασμὸν) and from 
what precedes (iva ζήσωμεν), is implied (Diister- 
dieck). Hence there is no reason whatsoever for 
rendering ὅτε once ‘ because” and then “ that” 
(Baumgarten-Crusius), or for translating both 
times ‘‘ because’ but only as protases, thus: not 
because we loved Him but because He loved us, did 
He send His Son (Lachmann), or fora transposition 
of the words as if we did read: ὅτε οὐκ pb 2 
or for taking the first proposition as a dependent 
clause=/juav μὴ ἀγαπησάντων (Meyer: that al- 
though we have not loved God before, yet did He 
love us). a Lapide erroneously assigns to the im- 
plication the first place saying: ‘‘JIic caritatem Dei 
ponderat et exaggerat ex eo, quod Deus nulla dilec- 
tione, nullo obsequio nostro provocatus, imo multis 
injuriis et sceleribus nostris offensus, prior dilexit nos.” 

And sent His Son (as) a propitiation 
for our sins.—This is the proof in fact of αὐτὸς 
ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς. The Aorist ἀπέστειλεν, like ἠγαπή- 
σαμεν, ἠγάπησεν, simply narrates, while the Per- 
fect ἀπέσταλκεν v. 9 absolutely presentiates 
Christ’s having been sent (Liicke). ᾿Απέστειλε 
stands emphatically in ante-position in order to 
set the act of God in relief; ἱλασμὸν περὶ τῶν 
ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν has an explanatory and substan- 
tiating reference to ζήσωμεν δ αὐτοῦ v. 9. Cf. 
ch. ii. 2; iii. 16. Insufficient: testatwm fecit, se 
velle condonare (Rosenmiiller). 

Brotherly love inferred. v. 11. [from vv. 9, 10, 
and substantiating the exhortation v. 7.—M. } 

Ver. 11. Beloved—<ayarnroi has a peculiar 
emphasis and distinct meaning, 7. 6. it designates 
those who stand in the enjoyment of the expe- 
rience of the love of God. 

If God so loved us.—Because εἰ with the 
Indicative introduces the aforesaid fact, it is de- 
scribed as an indubitable ground for an inference 
tobe built uponit. [Alford calls attention to the 
difficulty of rendering this εἰ with an Indicative 
in English, which is neither any expression of 
uncertainty, nor—since, or seeing that; he de- 
scribes it as “ἃ certainty put inthe shape of a 
doubt, that the hearer’s mind may grasp the cer- 
tainty for itself, not take it from the speaker.” 
If (it be true that) . .—is perhaps the nearest 
filling up of the sense.”—M.]. Oirwe denotes the 
preceding description of love; it is here—Aae ra- 
tione, prevenient without any merit on our part, 
in the sending of His Son for the propitiation of 
our sins; but it is not— santa caritate, as in Jno. 
iii. 16 (where οὕτως---ὥστε requires such a con- 
struction, as Diisterdieck rightly observes). There 
is no warrant for the interpretation: nullo homi- 
num discrimine (Grotius). 

We also ought to love one another.—In 
the first place we have to take notice of #ue%e— 
ἀλλήλους: we, first the object of the glorious love 
of God (ἡμᾶς) must now also regard and treat 
every Christian as an object of Divine love and 


brother whom God loves, and to this compels us 
the love. with which we ourselves are loved. 
Hence the Apostle uses the word ὀφείλομεν not 
only because there is extant for it an objectively 
given commandment and example, but also a sub- 
jective preparation for it; as God’s children, born 
out of Him who is Love, born out of His Love- 
Being, we must love one another. 

There is no fellowship with God without brotherly 
love. vv. 12, 18. 

Ver. 12. No one hath ever beheld God.— 
Cf. Jno. i. 18: ἑώρακεν. The Perfects there, like 
τεϑέαται here are on account of πώποτε to be em- 
phatically referred to the past with respect to its 
separate course and periods, and must not be 
construed according to a Hebraism, as carrying 
present force (Estius), or as comprehending the 
past and the present (Liicke). The word τεθέαται 
denotes calm, continued looking at and contem- 
plation of a thing, but it is real seeing [in the 
literal sense of the word as distinguished from 
spiritual beholding, inward vision—M. ]; this is 
the view of the Greek Commentators, (Augustine, 
Spener, Liicke and al.), as in v. 14 and—édpaxev 
also v. 20. The sense is: God is invisible (1 Tim. 
vi. 16). Passages like Exod. xxxiii. 20, and 
Gen. xii. 7; xvii. 1 ete., are not contradictory, 
since where God did appear, it was not His face, 
but some assumed form that became visible. 
Consequently the passage must not be interpreted 
in a spiritual sense, as if it imported spiritual 
seeing and that God cannot be known and appre- 
hended by man’s own, natural powers (Piscator), 
or immediately (Rickli), or as He is (Estius), 
that He is consequently inscrutable (Neander). 
The explanation of this axiom follows from, 

If we love one another, God abideth 
in us and His love is perfected in us.— 
The proposition: ϑεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεϑέαται, Ob- 
viously refers not (Ὁ the proposition ἀγαπᾷν 
ἀλλήλους Which contains a presupposition and a 
condition, but to the leading thought: ὁ ϑεὸς 
ἐν ἡμῖν μένει. The Apostle is wholly concerned 
with the inward life-fellowship, with the inward 
relation between God and man which is to be 
carried on to perfection and which manifests it- 
self in brotherly love; hence brotherly love is 
only the presupposition and condition of the 
assertion and assumption of such life-fellowship 
with God, but not of that relation itself (con- 
trary to Frommann). So especially Diisterdieck, 
Huther. The invisibility of God surely does not 
exclude our love to God (vy. 20. cf. 1 Pet. i. 8); 
nor is the invisibility of God used here to direct 
us to brotherly love, as if we should show to the 
brethren what we cannot show to Him (Liicke 
and al.); in that case ϑεὸν οὐκ. ϑεᾶσϑαι and not 
ἀγαπᾷν ἀλλήλους would have been introduced with 
ἐὰν. ᾿Αγάπη Yeov denotes His love, the love of 
God, even the love peculiar to and inhering in 
Him, which is in us, if He ἐν ἡμῖν μένει. In this 
life-fellowship with Him we participate in His 
love, which is τετελειωμένη, has become perfected 

i. ὁ. has reached its full completion and matu- 
rity.—M.]. This love has its history of growth 
and completion in us and corresponds pari passu 
with brotherly love: where the one is, there is 
also the other; they mutually conditionate each 


consequently become the subjects of such expe-| other; it is loving with God, (out) of God, in 
rienced Divine love; to this necessitates us the | God, which with Him is in us as His Being; du- 


CHAP. IV. 7-21. 


143 


tiful loving (ὀφείλομεν v. 11) is natural in be- 
lievers. Hence the reference is not to God’s love 
to us (Hunnius, Caloy, Spener, Beza, Sander 
and al.), for the predicate would not suit such a 
construction; nor to our love to God (Luther, 
Calvin, Grotius, Liicke, Neander, Diisterdieck 
and others), nor to ea dilectio quam Deus prescrip- 
sit (Socinus), nor to the mutual relation of love 
between God and us (Ebrard), 

Ver. 13. In this we know that we abide 
in Him and He in us, that He hath given 
us of His Spirit.—The mark of recognition of 
the life-fellowship of God with us, and among 
ourselves with God, agrees exactly with the de- 
scription at ch. ili. 24, as does also the reference 
to the gift of the Spirit (ἐν τούτῳ): ὅτε ἐκ τοῦ 
πνεύματος αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν. Neither οὗ ch. iii. 
24, nor the preposition ἐκ here, has partitive 
force; it rather answers to ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος, 
Acts ii. 17; Joel iii. 1 (uxx.), while the Vulgate 
in conformity to the original text renders spiritwm 
meum effundam, and denotes the origin and source 
of the Spirit in us, although we, as distinguished 
from Jesus who has the Spirit οὐκ ἐκ μέτρου (Jno. 
ili. 34), have only part in Him; the coarse notion 
of a divisibility or dismemberment of the Spirit 
must be strenuously excluded. The Spirit Him- 
self is given tous; nothing is said here of His 
gifts; there is no reference to the διαιρέσις τῶν 
χαρισμάτων, 1 Cor. xii. 4, 11—(in opposition to 
Estius). His Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ, the Love- 
Spirit of God) answers to ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ and con- 
firms the explanation of y. 12, as given above, 
and supplements the fact that His Spirit mediates 
in us His love and its perfections. 

Evidence of this inward life-fellowship as a certain 
fact. vy. 14, 15, 16. 

Ver. 14. And we have beheld and tes- 
tify.—Antithesis to vy. 12: No one has ever 
beheld God, but we have seen the Son of the 
Father. Ἡμεῖς designates the Apostles and their 
associates, and this reference is confirmed by 
τεθεάμεθα καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν, which verbs point to an 
immediate, personal beholding as contrasted 
with the knowledge mediated by others (ch. i. 1, 
2; Jno. i. 14), to their eye- and ear-witness (Jno. 
i. 84). What they have beheld, that they testify 
also; both verbs have the same object: 

That the Father hath sent the Son as 
Saviour of the world.—In Jesus, the Sent 
One from God, they have beheld δόξαν αὐτοῦ, 
δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρὸς, πλήρης χάριτος 
καὶ ἀληθείας (πιο. i, 14), and therefore they beheld 
Him as the Sent One of God. Τοῦ κόσμου (ef. ch. 
ii. 2; Jno. ili. 16; iv. 42), implies that He is 
sent for every man, not only for the electi in omni- 
bus populis (Piscator); the universality of salva- 
tion is also confirmed by the sequel: 

Ver. 15. Whosoever confesseth that 
Jesus is the Son of God.—This ὁμολογεῖν is 
the consequence of the reception of the μαρτυρεῖν 
of the Apostles. Cf. ch. ii. 2, 28. The reference 
here is neither to the confession in the fact of 
brotherly love (Bede), nor to the testimony of a 
holy life accompanying the confession with the 
mouth (Augustine, Grotius); but the faith of the 
heart, which receives the Apostolical μαρτυρία is 
taken for granted. Cf. ν. 16. 

God abideth in Him and He in God.— 
The confession, therefore, is to be taken as con- 

29 


nected with the life-fellowship with God, and an 
ungodly conversation surely will not belie the 
confession; God in Christ Jesus will have appro- 
priated salvation to the believer. 

Ver. 16. And we have known and 
believed.—The beginning καὶ ἡμεῖς exactly as 
in v. 14. But ἐγνώκαμεν and πεπιστεύκαμεν is 
matter of the disciples of Jesus without any ex- 
ception whatsoever (Estius, Calov, Spener, Liicke, 
de Wette, Diisterdieck, Ebrardy Huther), not of 
the Apostles only, as in τεθεάμεθα καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν 
(in opposition to Episcopius, Rickli and al.). Cf. 
Jno. vi. 69: πεπιστεύκαμεν καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν; ef. 
Lange in this Commentary, Vol. IV., p. 166, Ger- 
man edition. ‘True faith is, according to John, 
a faith of knowledge and experience: true know- 
ledge of faith’ (Liicke); both are in one another; 
each conditions and promotes the other. Hence 
it is really immaterial which of the two is put 
first; the moral act of faith and the intellectual 
act of knowing are ultimately not without the 
working of God in His Spirit on our spirit. For 
the reception of the word of truth in faith is a 
receiving from the Lord of the word, just as the 
shining of this bright word into the heart and the 
luminous rise of the truth of the word in the 
heart, come also from Him. The two constitute 
the foundation of man’s confession. Hence the 
Perfects which continue to operate in the present 
confession. The object follows, viz.: 

The love which God hath in us.—Cf. 
Jno. xiii. 85: ἵνα ἀγάπην ἔχητε ἐν ἀλλήλοις. The 
Present is emphatically placed first after the 
preceding Perfects; ἐν is used here as iny. 9. It 
is, as in Jno. vi. 69 (ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ ϑεοῦ), 
something objective, God’s love on us, namely in 
Christ Jesus, wherefore Bede says: ‘‘Quia vide- 
licet cum haberet filium unicum, noluit illum esse 
unum, sed ut fratres haberet, adoptavit illi, qui cum 
illo possiderent vitam externam.”’ Hence neither 
the subjective love of God erga nos (Estius, 
Luther, Socinus, Grotius, Rickli and al.), nor 
the love of God indwelling in us (Wilke, Her- 
meneutik des Neuen Testaments, 11, 64,), nor our 
love, kindled in us by God’s love (Ebrard).—Now 
follows the concluding summary, 

God is love and he that abideth in love, 
abideth in God and God abideth in him. 
—A combination of vy. 8 and 15. Ἔν τῇ ἀγάπῃ 
denotes Love absolute, as the element of those wha 
are born of God, and neither brotherly love 
(Liicke and al.), nor God’s love to us (Ebrard) ; 
it occurs here without any qualifying addition. 
Μένων, however, denotes the love of man in 
which he abides and which dwells in him. 

Perfecting of love in fearlessness. vv. 17, 18. 

Ver. 17. In this, love is perfected with 
us.—’Aydzy is again absolute as in vy. 16, 18, 
and must neither be construed as God’s love εἰς 
ἡμᾶς, nor as our love εἰς ἀλλήλους (Socinus), nor 
to God (Lange), but simultaneously as the dis- 
position and activity of love (Huther), as at ch. 
ili. 18; and μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν must receive its full force 
of among, between, with us; see Winer, p. 336 
sq.—Were it not parallel with ἐν ἡμῖν v. 12 we 
might think of fellowship, ecclesiastical fellow- 
ship, the Christian Church, within which love 
has been perfected; the context also points to the 
individual life and perfection of Christians and 
not to the life and perfection of the Christian 


144 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Church as such. Its most natural construction is 
with the verb τετελείωται (Liicke, de Wette, Diis- 
terdieck and al.), not with ἀγάπη, of which it 
cannot be the object, since it is not—ci¢ ἡμᾶς, as 
supposed by Luther, Calvin, Spener, Bengel, 
Sander, Besser and al. The position of the 
words is not more decisive for the connection 
with ἀγάπη here than at y. 9 (in opposition to 
Huther); με ἡμῶν denotes the place where love 
was perfected. Hence ἡμῶν must not be resolved 
into God and we (Rickli) and construed as the 
mutual love of God and Christians, which 
would be wholly inadmissible and repugnant to 
the spirit of the Gospel. Τετελείωται should be 
construed like τετελειωμένη ἐστίν, ν. 12, and τελεία 
and τετελείωται in y. 18, this ἀγάπῃ in and on us 
is something to be perfected, and this perfection 
itself is not ready and accomplished at once; it 
has its stagesand degrees. This is inconceivable 
and unpredicable of the love of God. But wherein 
is it primarily perfected? ἐν τούτῳ---ἵνα παῤῥη- 
σίαν ἔχωμεν: 

That we have confidence in the day of 
judgment.—On παῤῥησία see Notes on ch. ii. 
28 in Hxegetical and Critical. "Iva, which follows 
αὕτη, ch. iii. 11, 23; Jno. xvii. 3 and also ἐν 
τούτῳ, Jno. xv. 8, gives the purpose of God in the 
perfecting of love with us; we shall have confi- 
dence. Ἔν τούτῳ therefore must neither be re- 
ferred to what goes before y. 16 (Spener), nor, 
with the assumption of a trajecta anticipatio, con- 
nected with ὅτε (Grotius, Beza and al.), nor must 
ἵνα be construed in the sense of ὥστε (Episcopius, 
Bengel and al.). The ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως is ὅταν 
φανερωθῇ ch. ii. 28. Of course ἐν has its usual 
sense and must not be explained=eic; for the re- 
ference here is not to the confidence of expecta- 
tion, the desire of its drawing near (Augustine, 
Calvin), where men are liable to deceive them-: 
selves. Of course, he that may and will have 
confidence iz the judgment, will also have confi- 
dence before it takes place: however, it is to be 
borne in mind that even believers, notwithstand- 
ing their activity of love, will be surprised in the 
judgment (Matth. xxv. 31 sqq.); the reference is 
solely to confidence in the judgment, not to con- 
fidence beforehand. It is incorrect to combine 
the two with Rickli, Huther and al.; nor must 
τετελείωται be taken as a futurum exactum. [It is 
doubtful whether Braune’s exegesis will carry 
conviction to the mind of the reader. It seems 
to be rather contradictory, for while he condemns 
the interpretation of Rickliand Huther, he seems 
to adopt it when he says that ‘of course he that 
may and will have confidence ir the judgment, 
will also have confidence before it takes place.” 
On the whole, Huther’s explanation, which is 
substantially that of Alford, seems to be the most 
natural, He says: “The difficulty that some- 
thing future (our attitude in the day of judgment), 
is to be valid as a mark of perfect love in the pre- 
sent, vanishes by the assumption that ἐν involves 
both the παῤῥησία of believers in the day of judg- 
ment, and their present παῤῥησία in anticipation 
of that day; this combination was natural to the 
Apostle who thought of the day of judgment not 
as very remote but as already dawning (ch. ii. 
18). Inhis love this future παῤῥησία is to him 
already present.’’—M. ]. 

Because as He is, we also are in this 


world,.—’0r/ annexes the reason of our confidence 
in the day of judgment. ’Exeivoc is Jesus and not 
God (Augustine, Calvin and al.). The Present 
ἐστί must not be construed (a Lapide, Gro- 
tius, Rickli and al.), nor must the words ἐν τῷ 
κόσμῳ τούτῳ be referred to Christ. The compari- 
son must be gathered from the context: it is 
very strict, καθὼς---καὶ. The point in hand is the 
μένειν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, Which μένειν perfects love even 
unto filial confidence in the day of judgment (so 
Huther who cites Lorinus, ‘reddit nos caritas 
Christo similes et conformes imagini filii Dei’. 
Hence not likeness in suffering (Luther) or temp- 
tability (Rickli), not likeness in that, though we 
are in the world, we are not of the world (San- 
der); for nothing is said on these points; neither 
is here any reference to the adoption (Liicke), nor 
to δικαιοσύνη (Diisterdieck). Love is the eternal 
Being of Christ, cf. ch. iii. 7 (Huther). [The last 
named author lays stress on ἐστὴν and compares 
in the passage cited the words: καθὼς ἐκεῖνος 
δίκαιός €oTLv.—Alford adopts the explanation 
of Diisterdieck, who thus develops his view: St. 
John does not say that Love is perfected in con- 
fidence in us, because we resemble Christ in 
Love; but he refers to the fundamental truth on 
which our Love itself rests and says: because we 
are absolutely like Christ, because we are in 
Christ Himself, because He lives in us, for with- 
out this there cannot be likeness to Him; in a 
word, because we are, in that communion with 
Christ which we are assured of by our likeness 
to Him in righteousness, children of God, there- 
fore our love brings with it also full confidence. 
Essentially, the reason here rendered for our 
confidence in the day of judgment is the same as 
that given, ch. iii. 21 sq., for another kind of con- 
fidence, viz., that we keep His commandments. 
This also betokens the δικαιοσύνη, of which Christ 
is the essential exemplar and which is a necessary 
attribute of those who through Christ are children 
of God.—M.]. Ἔν τῷ κόστῳ τούμῳ applied to 
ἐσμέν, denotes the place of abode, the earthly 
sphere of life, whereas Christ is in heaven, and 
is not an ethical idea, though we should supply 
with Bengel: amoris experte judicium timente. 
Ver. 18. Fear is not in love.—Antithesis 
of παῤῥησία ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως. Quite gen- 
eral: In love is not fear; fear is not a part of 
love, it is something wholly foreign to it, which 
is only outside of it (Huther). According to the 
well known phrase: oderint, dum metuant, hatred 
and fear are congruous, but love and fear are 
wholly incongruous. There is nothing said of 
the fear of God which is the beginning of wis- 
dom (Ps. exi. 10), nor of love; hence neither our 
love to God, nor brotherly love (Liicke), and 
still less God’s love to us (Calvin, Calov, Spener). 
But perfect love casteth out fear.— 
Τελεία is more than sincera, opposita simulationt 
(Beza), and ἔξω is not out of itself (Liicke), as if 
it were in it, but out of the heart. ‘ Love not 
only does not contain fear, but it also does not 
suffer it alongside of itself; the love which wholly 
drives away fear is not love in its first beginning, 
love as yet weak, but love in its perfection.” 
(Huther). [Alford says of ἀλλά that it is not 
here the mere adversative after a negative clause, 
in which case it would refer to something in 
which fear is, 6. g. φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ, 


CHAP. IV. 7-21. 


145 


ae a ee a aE a a a ππτ  - -Ξ-- ΞΞΞΞΞ τ πο  -πἔὐπππππεοσ πιο .0δὕΧ.ὕ.0...ν..ψ.ω0ορ....:..............ἐὑΠὺἅᾶᾷΡᾷπΠΠΠΞ τς 


ἀλλ᾽ (ἐστιν) ἐν τῷ μισεῖ : but it is the stronger ad- 
versative, implying, ‘“‘nay, far otherwise:” “ tan- 
tum abest ut . ut;” and renders: Fear 
existeth not in love, nay, perfect love casteth out 
fear, ete.—M. ].—Where such love fills the heart, 
there is no room for fear, 

Because fear hath punishment.—This is 
the reason why love does not suffer fear alongside 
itself. Κόλασις often used in the τχχ., [Ez. xiv. 
3, 4, 7; xviii. 30; xliv. 12, cf. Wisd. xi. 14; xvi. 
2, 24; xix. 4.—M.], as in Matth. xxv. 46 in the 
sense of punishment, pain of punishment (Besser) 
under the menace of the κρίσις. Bengel: ‘‘ tormen- 
tum habet; nam diffidit, omnia inimica et adversa 
sibi fingit ac proponit, fugit, odit.’ Hence it is 
not consciousness of punishment (Liicke), for the 
punishment has not yet set in; nor condemnation 
pronounced in the final judgment on him who 
does not stand in the fellowship of love (Diister- 
dieck). Ὁ φόβος is neither pro concreto: he that 
fears (de Wette, Disterdieck), nor is éyec=re- 
ceives; and least of all: fear holds fast to, tenet, 
thinks of punishment, knows nothing of clemency 
and love (Baumgarten-Crusius).—[‘‘The pain 
felt in expectation of the punishment of Him 
who is feared” (Huther); ‘‘Fear by anticipating 
punishment has it even now” (Alford).—M. ]. 

But he that feareth is not perfected in 
love.—Negative connected with the main propo- 
sition: ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον, and 
application to the beginning: φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν 
τῇ ἀγάπῃ: Hence δὲ is by all means to be re- 
tained, and neither to be cancelled, nor to be 
construed—ovv or καὶ [dé is strictly adversative. 
—M.]. Itis accordingly both owing to a want of 
perfection in the individual and to a want of per- 
fection of love (τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπη---ἡ τελεία 
ἀγάπη), if fear is present, fear, as in Rom. viii. 15: 
οὐκ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον. Un- 
necessary [and diluting—M.] are the conjectures 
of Grotius, who proposes to read κόλουσιν (muti- 
lationem) instead of κόλασιν (metus amorem muti- 
lat atque infringit, aut prohibet, ne se exserat), and 
koAovouevog instead of φοβούμενος (qui mutilatur 
aut impeditur in dilectione), and of Lamb. Bos who 
reads κώλυσιν instead of κόλασιν. [Oecumenius 
says that there are two kinds of godly fear, φόβος 
προκαταρκτικός, Which afflicts men with a sense of 
their evil deeds and dread of God’s anger, and 
which is not abiding; and φόβος τελειωτικός, of 
which it is said, ‘‘The fear of the Lord is clean 
and endureih forever,” Ps. xix., and which δέους 
τοιούτου ἀπήλλακται.---Ν.1. 

The love of God is necessarily united with brotherly 
love. vv. 19, 20, 21. 

Ver. 19. We love αοῦ.---Φοβούίμενος is con- 
trasted with ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν ϑέον, without an ad- 
dress, like ἀγαπητοί, v. 7. There is nothing here 
to indicate the Conjunctive or an exhortation. 
‘Hucis,—emphatically placed first, who are born 
of God, His children,—rather notes the fact, the 
Indicative (Calvin, Beza, Aretius, Socinus, Spe- 
ner, S. Schmidt, Bengel, Rickli, Neander, Ebrard, 
Erdmann, Huther, Hofmann, Schrifibeweis 11. 2. 
338); it corresponds, like the whole verse 19, 
with οὐχ ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠγαπήσαμεν τὸν Yedv. Neither 
the comparison with v. 7, nor the ground and 
the further development in vy. 20, 21, can war- 
rant the interpretation that we must assume here 
an imperative Conjunctive (as Diisterdieck does). 


For the majority of authorities favour the addi- 
tion of the object, even the οὖν of A. implies as 
much. [Alford, who is on the same side, fixes 
the connection thus: “He that fearcth is not per- 
fect in love. Our love (abstract, not specified 
whether to God or our brother) is brought about 
by, conditioned by, depends upon His love to us 
first; it is only a sense of that which can bring 
about our love: and if so, then from the very 
nature of things it is void of terror, and full of 
confidence, as springing out of a sense of His 
love to us. Nor only so: our being new begot- 
ten in love is not only the effect of a sense of His 
past love, but is the effect of that love itself.” — 
M.]. In the ground 

Because He first loved us, πρῶτος is em- 
phatic, and this seems to suggest a primary ref- 
erence to our love to God, cf. vv. 9, 10. From 
our most natural love to God, grounded on our 
experience of the love of God, the Apostle now 
passes on to brotherly love. 

Ver. 20. If any say, I love God, and 
hate his brother, he is a liar.—’Edv τις εἴπῃ, 
cf. ch. i. 6; ὅτι before ἀγαπῶ τὸν Gedy frequently 
introduces direct speech. This progress confirms 
the assumption of the Indicative in vy. 19. Here 
the Apostle resolves the communicate form of 
speech into the singular form as a conclusion 
and proof. Μισῇ answers to the next following 
ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν. Cf. ch. iii. 14,15. ‘To hate is the 
positive form of not to love.” (Huther). Cf. 
Luke xiv. 26. Col. Matth. x. 87. Every defect of 
love makes room to hatred. Hence ψεύστης ἐστὶ, 
as inch. i. 6. The reason: 

For he that loveth not his brother 
whom he hath seen, how can he love 
God (or cannot love God) whom he hath 
not seen ?—The main stress lies in the antith- 
esis ὃν ἑώρακεν and ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν. The Perfect 
denotes sight continuing in its effect (de Wette, 
Diisterdieck, Huther); Liicke: éwpaxévac—to have 
before one’s eyes; a Lapide: vidit et assidue videt. 
Socinus goes too far in emphasizing the Perfect 
so as to make it also intimate that it is enough 
to have seen and become acquainted with one, 
and that it is not necessary to have him still be- 
fore one’s eyes. The saying of Gregory: oculi 
sunt in amore duces, and the remark of Oecu- 
menius: ἐφελκυστικὸν ὅρασις πρὸς ἀγάπην, supply 
what is understood in the inference. μον to God, 
the Invisible, is difficult; also 1 Pet. 1. 8: ὃν οὐκ 
εἰδότες ἀγαπᾶτε express both joy and amazement. 
He therefore who performs the more difficult task 
of loving God whom he does not see, must also 
perform the easier work of loving his brother 
whom he does see. The Apostle’s object, conse- 
quently, is not to lead us from the love to our 
brother to the love of God, but only to verify the 
latter by the former; love to God ever remains 
the first, the deepest and highest work, which 
must, however, evidence itself in brotherly love. 
The interrogative form is as strong and authentic 
as the simple negation; but the anteposition of 
the object τὸν ϑεὸν ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν greatly inten- 
sifies the thought. Πῶς or οὐ δύναται ἀγαπᾷν pre- 
supposes ἐάν τις εἴπῃ and denotes the supposition 
of the assertion of loving God [under the cir- 
cumstances.—M.] to be impossible, and the as- 
sertion itself a lie. The Apostle’s argumentumn 
ad hominem applies only to the liar (Diisterdieck). 


146 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Bengel: Sermo modalis; impossibile est, ut talis sit 
amans Dei, in presenti. Hence the reference to 
the imago Dei, which Augustine (apostolus hie pro 
confesso sumit, Deus se nobis in hominibus offerre, 
qui inscriptam gerunt ejus imaginem; Johannes nil 
aliud voluit, quam fallacem esse jactantiam, si quis 
Deum se amare dicat, et ejus imaginem, que ante 
oculos est, negligat), Sander, Ebrard (who suggests 
that it is not easier to love one who is visible be- 
fore us, but has hurt us) and al., find here is by 
no means warranted, nor that of Grotius who 
calls man opus Dei pulcherrimum. De Wette also 
erroneously maintains that God, the ideal, invisi- 
ble object could only be loved in reality in our 
brother, the visible, empirical object of love. 

Ver. 21. And this commandment we 
have from Him.—Ka? simply adds a new rea- 
son: the reference is to a specific commandment. 
This is a firmius argumentum (Calvin): for quo- 
modo diligis eum, cujus odisti preceptum? (Augus- 
tine). ᾿Απ’ αὐτοῦ refers to God (Liicke, de Wette, 
Diisterdieck and al.), not to Christ (Calvin), San- 
der, Huther andal.). The fact that ϑεὸν is used af- 
terwards does not militate against the application 
of αὐτοῦ to ϑεὸν, since Jesus in His intercessory 
prayer Jno. xvii, 3 mentions His own name instead 
of saying ἐμέ. The analogy of ch. i. 5; ii. 25 
can not upset the context and ch. iii. 23. 24, and 
only indicate that αὐτὸς also may designate Christ, 
and that not ἐκεῖνος only does designate Him. 
The ἐντολῇ is and remains a commandment, and 
ποί---ἀγγελία, doctrine (Carpzov). 

That he who loveth God, love his bro- 
ther also.—But this commandment is nowhere 
found; not even at Matth xxii. 39. But the 
Apostle justly puts in the form of a definite Di- 
vine command the essential principle of Christian 
Ethics, which really and fundamentally carries 
everything which here (vy. 7 sqq. iii. 10. 19. ef. 
Jno. xiii. 34, ete.) is told of the inviolable duty 
of brotherly love to those who are born of 
God and in filial love united to their Father 
(Diisterdieck); iva denotes also here the end and 
aim and not only the substance of the command, 
as Huther supposes. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. God is Love—a sentence, which ‘‘is the 
summary and most simple expression of what the 
Scripture, the whole Scripture teaches through- 
out” (Hofmann, Schriftheweis I. p. 71), and has 
an important bearing retrospectively and pro- 
spectively. Retrospectively it bears even on the 
Being of God and on the history of God's revela- 
tion in Christ Jesus. If the Being of God is Love 
it must also be personal and cannot be substance 
only in the pantheistic sense. Yea, it points to 
the Trinity or God’s vitality and fulness of life; 
Him that loves, who is yet not without Him that 
is LOVED, and reciprocal Love, as Augustine tried 
also this purely ethical construction of the Trin- 
ity alongside the psychological analogy (memo- 
ria, intelligentia, voluntas) in De Trinitate (VI. 5: 
and therefore there are not more than three: One 
who loves Him who is of Him, and One who 
loves Him of whom He is, and Love Itself. If 
this is nothing, how is God Love? If it is not 
Substance, how is God Substance? XI. 2: If I 
love something there are three,—I, what I love, 
and Love itself. For I do not love Love, if I do 


not love Him that loveth, for love is not where 
nothing is loved); hence he could, according to 
Rom. y. 5, understand in our passage (v. 7) by 
ἀγάπη the Holy Ghost, while Didymus explained 
ἀγάπη of Christ. In the middle ages Augustine 
was particularly followed by Richard of St. Vic- 
tor, the mystic scholastic, or the scholastic mys- 
tic (cf. Liebner, Hugo von St. Victor p. 82 sqq.), 
in his work De Trinitate, especially ΠῚ. 14—and 
in modern times, first of all, by Sartorius: Die 
heilige Liebe, Part I. p. 1 sqq., and Liebner: 
Christologie I (in many places). See also Nitzsch 
on the Essential Trinity of God in the Studien 
und Kritiken, 1841, pp. 295—3845, especially p. 
337 sqq. 

2. Retrospectively, traces of this truth may be 
found in the ZHistory of the Revelation of God in 
Ex. xxxiv. 6; Ps. ciii. 8-13; Ixxxvi. 5,15; Deut. 
xxxli. 6; Is. lxiii. 16; Jer. xxxi. 9. But John 
treats in the most comprehensive manner, with 
perfect ease and certainty this most profound 
thought which would never have occurred to any 
thinker out of his own strength and reason! The 
heavens declare the glory and majesty of God 
only, (Ps. xix.) His word alone declares His grace. 
In nature we meet His handiwork, His Power and 
Wisdom, in His word alone do we encounter His 
Love and Mercy. The axioms ‘God is a Spirit” 
(Jno. iv. 24), and ‘*God is Love” set forth the 
most vital truths concerning the Nature and 
Being of God.—‘‘ Spirit is His Nature, Love His 
Life” (Schéberlein), or Spirit is the Substance 
and Nature, Love the character of God and not 
only in His attitude. 

3. Prospectively this Johannean saying points 
to the life of knowledge and of demeanour. 
Sartoriusin his ‘‘/eilige Liebe”’ has based on this 
saying the whole of his Ethics. Cf. also Kohler, 
“« Gott der allein Gute” (God the Only Good One) 
in Studien und Kritiken 1856, p, 426 sqq. ‘*Prac- 
ticam definitionem Dei proponit 1 Joh. iv. 8: Deus 
caritas est. Ex caritate omnia Dei opera procedunt, 
et Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio ab xterno pro- 
cedens est substantialis amor Patris et Filti. In 
tempore Deus ex caritate omnia creavit, ex caritate 
misit Filium ad opus redemtionis: prestandum, ex 
caritate dat Spiritum Sanctum, qui similes motus in 
cordibus credentium accendit, ex caritate in vita 
zterna a facie ad faciem beatis sese intuendum pre- 
stabit.— Omnia in caritate et ex caritate agit (Joh. 
Gerhard ἔχε. ii. p. 71). But we must guard 
against straightway identifying Love, which is 
the Nature of God, with the Personality of God 
which is the logical presupposition of the former 
(against Liebner, i. 1, 111), and to take care not 
to combine Love with Truth and Righteousness 
(as does Nitzsch, System 3 63. 1), for communi- 
cation of self is implied in the nature of Love, 
but not in the nature of truth and holiness, and 
what becomes of the difference between παιδεία 
and κόλασις, of the anti-seriptural conception of 
ἀποκατάστασις τῶν πάντων and the wrathless God 
in Origen and Schleiermacher? Cf. Thomasius, 
Christi Werk und Person, i. p. 127 sqq.; Philippi, 
Glaubenslehre, ii. p. 79 sqq. 

4. The love of God was revealed in the sending 
of His only begotten Son. vv. 2, 9, 10, 12, 14. 
Hence He is called μονογενήςεε: μόνος γεννώμενος 
(Jno. i. 14, 18; iii. 16, 18), and not πρωτότοκος 
(Rom. viii. 29; Col. i. 15, 18; Hebr. i. 6; Rev 


CHAP. IV. 7-21. 


147 


i. 5). The greatness of the Sent One and the 
object of His Mission are designed to mark the 
love of Him that sent Him. The reference to 
the first-born would mark the success of the 
Mission and the work of the Sent One. There is 
no other proof of the love of the Father, equal to 
this: Christ, the Son of God by His appearing 
and message compensates us for the want of 
seeing the Invisible God (v. 12. Jno. xiv. 9). 
Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, i. 71. 

5. To see, know, believe on, confess and tes- 
tify of Jesus the Son of God on the part of the 
Apostles, to hear, know, believe and confess on 
the part of the Church, is indispensable to the 
life-fellowship of God with us, and of us with 
God, since, through and through ethical, it can 
only be acquired and preserved by an ethical 
process. With the new birth out of God, spirit- 
ual regeneration, begins the life-process of 
sanctification. To remain untouched, unmoved 
in the presence of Jesus, or only to be turned to 
Him outwardly, or even to turn away from Him, 
to deny Him in doubt or decided unbelief, is im- 
morality. 

6. The nature of this life-fellowship, begun 
with our regeneration, is mutuality in continuous 
reciprocity of action; He to and in us, we in 
Him, believingly knowing and confessing Him, 
living and loving, we full of confidence, He 
in His ever prevenient grace and work of grace 
to and in us. 

7. The degrees of development are given by 
Bengel thus: ‘Sine timore et amore, cum timore 
sine amore, cum timore et amore, sine timore cum 
amore.’ And Augustine: ‘Zimor quasi locum 
preparat caritati. St autem nullus timor, non est, 
gua intret caritas. Timor Dei sic vulnerat, quo me- 
dici ferramentum. Timor medicamentum, caritas san- 
itas. Timor servus est caritatis. Timor est custos 
et pedagogus legis, donec veniat caritas.”” Though 
man in his sin begin with servile fear before God, 
in the presence of God’s Nature of Love and 
attitude of Love he will progress in filial fear 
even unto fearlessness and confidence in all 
humility. 

8. Brotherly love is and remains the measure 
of our life from God, from whom comes all love; 
he that abides in God, cannot be without love, 
and he that is without love cannot be in God, 
nor can God abide in him. He, who is Love, has 
thus ordained it Himself; it is His Will, His 
explicit commandment, even as it is in conformity 
with His Nature. 

9. [Wordsworth on v.10: ‘A statement of 
the doctrine of the Atonement, and a statement 
the more remarkable, because it anticipates the 
objections that have been made to it in later 
times.—These objections have taken the follow- 
ing form. God, it is said, is Love (1 Jno. iv. 8). 
Ife loves us, and He loves His only-begotten Son. 
We are sinners; and as long as we are sinners, 
and without pardon from God, we have no hope 
of heaven. As sinners we owe an infinite debt to 
God, which we can never pay. But God is znjinite 
in Love; He willeth not that any should perish (2 
Pet. iii. 9), but that all should be saved (1 Tim. ii. 
4). He can forgive us the debt. He can do this 
freely. To suppose that He cannot do so, is to 
set limits to His Omnipotence. To imagine that 
He will not do so, is to disparage His Love. To 


allege, that He will require an equivalent for the 
debt, is to represent the God of mercy as a rigor- 
ous exactor, and to believe that He required such 
a price for our pardon, as the blood of His own 
beloved Son, and that He exposed Him who is 
perfectly innocent, to the death of the cross for our 
sakes, at the hands of wicked men, is to charge 
God with cruelty, injustice and weakness; and 
to suppose Him to be angry with us, at the same 
time that we say that ‘‘He loved us,” and gave 
His only Son to die for us (1 Jno. iii. 16; iv. 10), 
is, it is alleged, to involve ourselves in incon- 
sistency, and to misrepresent God, as if He were 
affected by human passions. And lastly, to say 
that Christ shed His blood as a ransom to deliver 
us from the captivity of Satan, is, it is argued, to 
make the Son of God tributary to the Evil One. 
Such are the objections made by Socinians and 
others, to the doctrine of the Atonement.—These 
objections rest on fallacious grounds. They pro- 
ceed on the supposition that as sinners we are 
only debtors to God. But in His relation to us, 
God is not only a Creditor, but He is our Law- 
giver and Judge, our King and Lord; and He is 
perfectly just and holy. 

Besides, as St. John teaches (ch. iii. 4), the 
essence of sim is, that it is a violation of God’s 
Law, and all are sinners (ch. i. 10). And God 
represents Himself in Scripture as a Moral Goy- 
ernor, infinite in justice, and when we contem- 
plate Him as He is represented by Himself in 
His own Word, and when we regard sin as it is 
in His sight, and as it is described in the Holy 
Scriptures, we must conclude that He is griey- 
ously offended by sin; and He has declared in 
His word that He 7s angry with it and will punish 
it. The wrath of God is revealed against all un- 
godliness (Rom. i. 18), The wages of sin is death 
(Rom. vi. 23).—But this proposition is not at 
variance, as has ‘been alleged, with St. John’s 
declaration, that God loved us, and sent His own 
Son, the only begotten, that we might live through 
Him; and that herein consists Love, not that we 
loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son 
a propitiation for our sins. 

That which God loved in us was not our sin, 
but our nature. It was that nature which God 
Himself had made in His own likeness, and 
which we had marred, and which He desired to 
repair. And because He hates sin, and knows 
its consequences, even death eternal, and because 
He loved our nature which was exposed by it to 
everlasting perdition; and because being infi- 
nitely just, He must punish sin, which He, who is 
infinitely pure, must hate, and which He who is 
infinitely true, has declared that He will punish; 
and because the sins of the whole world are so 
heinous, and because they demand a satisfaction 
infinite in value, and because without shedding of 
blood there is no remission (Heb. ix. 22); therefore, 
in His immense love for our nature, which He 
had made and which we had marred by sin, He 
sent His own Son, God of God, to take that Na- 
ture, the Nature of ws all, in order to be the substi- 
tute of all, and Saviour of all, and to become our 
Emmanuel, God with us (Matth. i. 23), God mani- 
fest in the flesh (1 Tim. ili. 16), partaking of onr 
flesh and blood and to be the Lord our Righteousness 
(Jer. xxiii. 6; xxxiii. 16), and to suffer death, 
the wages of sin, in our nature, as our Proxy 


148 


and Representative, and to appease God's wrath 
by an adequate propitiation, and to take away our 
guilt, and to redeem us from bondage and death 
by the priceless ransom of His own blood, and to 
deliver us by His death from him who had the 
power of it, even the devil, and to reconcile us 
to God, and to restore us to His favour, and to 
effect our atonement with Him, and to purchase 
for us the heavenly inheritance of everlasting 
life. See.Heb. ii. 14, 17.—As Origen says (in 
Matth. xvi.): “‘Homo quidem non potest dare ali- 
quam commutationem pro anima sua (Ps. xlix. 9; 
Matth, xvi. 26); Deus autem pro animabus om- 
nium dedit commutationem, pretiosum sanguinem 
Milii sui (1 Pet. 1. 18).” ‘St non fuisset peceatum, 
non necesse fuerat Filium Dei Agnum fieri; nec opus 
fuerat Eum in carne positum jugulari ; sed mansisset 
hoc, quod in principio erat, Deus Verbum. Verum, 
quoniam introiit peccatum in hune mundum, peccati 
autem necessitas propitiationem reguirit, et propi- 
tiatio non fit nisi per hostiam, necessarium fuit pro- 
videri hostiam pro peccato.” (ibid. hom. 4in Num.) 
If it be said that according to this statement 
the just suffer for the unjust, and that the beloved 
Son of God was delivered to death for the offences 
of those who did not love Him, but were at en- 
mity with Him, this is perfectly true; it is the 
assertion of God Himself in Holy Scripture, see 
1 Pet. iii. 18; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 Pet. i. 19.—The 
Just suffered for the unjust. Yes, suffered for a 
time. But this is not at variance with daily ex- 
perience. Parents suffer for children; brethren 
for brethren; friends for friends; subjects for 
sovereigns, and sovereigns for subjects. And if 
we are to reject the doctrine of the Atonement 
on the plea that vicurious sufferings are not 
reconcilable with justice, we cannot stop short 
of Deism or even of Atheism. Cf. Bp. Butler’s 
Analogy of Religion. Part 11. ch. v. 

If any victim was to take away sin, that vic- 
tim must be innocent. In order to take away 
infinite guilt, it must be infinitely innocent. The 
price paid for Infinite Justice must be infinite in 
value. In order to suffer for men the victim 
must be human; and in order to satisfy God, it 
must be Divine. Be it remembered also that the 
Son of God suffered willingly. He gave Himself 
a ransom for all (1 Tim. ii. 6). The Good Shep- 
herd giveth His life for the sheep (John x. 11). 
Cf. Matth. xx. 28; Gal. i. 4; ii. 20; Eph. v. 2; 
Tit. ii. 14; Heb. ix. 14.—They also for whom He 
gave Himself are His own flesh and blood. He 
is their Head, they His members. They are one 
with Him.—Still further.—By His meritorious 
sufferings in that human nature, which He has 
taken, and joined forever in His own Person to 
the Nature of God, He has delivered that nature 
from sin and death, and has exalted it to the 
right hand of God. Therefore He suffered joy- 
fully. To do evil is indeed evil; and to suffer 
evil in elernity, is dreadful; but to suffer evil in 
time, in order that others by our means may be 
happy in‘eternity, is not evil, but glorious. 
Earthly conquerors die with joy in the hour of 
victory. Much more Christ. He knew that suf- 
fering was His path to glory. He knew that be- 
cause he was obedient to death, even to the death of 
the cross, therefore God would highly exalt Him, 
and give Him a Name above every name (Phil. ii. 8, 
9). He saw of the travail of His soul and was 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Se e————eE————E——————————ee 


satisfied (Is. 1111, 11). Doubtless, in His human 
flesh He shrank from the cup of agony and from 
the anguish of the cross. But even in the glori- 
ous hour of His transfiguration He had talked 
with Moses and Elias of His death (Luke ix. 31). 
His Divine eye pierced through the clouds of suf- 
fering, and saw the visions of glory to which it 
would lead, a victory over Satan, a world rescued 
from his grasp, God’s justice satisfied, His wrath 
appeased, His love glorified; and so the cross 
became a triumphal chariot, in which the Con- 
queror rode in victory (Col. ii. 14), and mounted 
to heaven, and bore mankind with Him through 
the gates of the heavenly palace of the everlast- 
ing capital and was greeted by the song of the 
angels, ‘‘ Lift up your heads,” ete. Ps. xxiv. 7.~ 

It has been alleged that if by sin we were pris- 
oners to Satan, therefore the price of Christ’s 
blood which He paid upon the cross for our libera- 
tion from Satan was paid to Satan. But this we 
deny. See Greg. Nazianzen, Orat. 45, p. 862, ed. 
Paris, 1778. It might as well be said that the 
ransom paid for the delivery of prisoners from a 
king’s prison, is paid to the gaoler in whose cus+ 
tody they are. We, by our sins, had made our- 
selves slaves of Satan; and as a just punishment 
for our sins, we were made prisoners of Satan. 
Satan was God’s executioner against us. He was 
our gaoler. Tophet is ordained of old (Is. xxx. 
33), as one of God's instruments of death (Ps. vii. 
14). But Christ, by dying for us, delivered us 
from death. He rescued us from the hands of 
Satan, and paid the price of our ransom, not to 
Satan, but to God. He delivered us from Satan 
by offering Himself to God. (Cf. Rom. iii. 23-26). 

They who contravene the doctrine of the Atone- 
ment often claim the credit of exercising their 
Reason, and deny that unbelief of the doctrine of 
the Atonement rests on the foundation of reason. 
But a right use of reason leads to a firm belief in 
the doctrine of the Atonement; and a denial of 
it proceeds from an abuse of reason.— 

The doctrine of the Atonement cannot be dis- 
covered by reason. No; but we can prove by rea- 
son that the Holy Scriptures are from God, and 
that the doctrine of the Atonement is clearly re- 
vealed in, the Holy Scriptures. And thus this 
doctrine rests on the foundation of reason. Be- 
ing a portion of supernatural truth revealed by 
God in Scripture to the world, it is not to be dis- 
covered by reason, or fully comprehended by reason, 
but it is to be heartily embraced and surely held 
fast by faith, which implies a right use of reason. 
And reason teaches us, that it would be very un- 
reasonable to expect, that what is contained in a 
revelation from such a Being as God to so frail a 
creature as man, in his present state on earth, 
should be fully comprehended by reason; and 
that, if reason could understand everything, there 
would be no use in revelation, and no place for 
faith. Rightreason itself teaches us that to deny 
the Lord who bought us (2 Pet. ii. 1), because we 
cannot understand, why God allowed sin to pre- 
vail, which required the sacrifice of the death of 
His own ever-blessed Son, would be to renew the 
indignities of the crucifixion, and to smite our 
Redeemer with a reed, the reed of our unre- 
generate reason, when we ought to fall down and 
worship in faith. Reason itself teaches us that 
it is very reasonable to expect mysteries in reve- 


CHAP. IV. 7-21. 149 


/ 


lation; and that they are our moral discipline, and 
exercise our humility, patience, faith and hope, 
and teach us to look forward to that blessed time, 
when we, who now see through a glass darkly 
(1 Cor. xiii. 12), shall behold the clouds removed, 
etc. Thus reason leads us to the door of the 
Holy of Holies; and then we pass within the veil 
by faith; and there we stand, and with the eye 
of faith, we behold God enthroned upon the 
Mercy Seat, sprinkled by the blood of Christ. 
Further, as reasonable men, looking at the cross 
of Christ, we see there the most cogent reasons 
for presenting ourselves, our souls and bodies a 
living Sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is 
our reasonable service (Rom. xii. 1). 

This doctrine of the Atonement is the root of 
Christian practice, and they, who impugn that 
doctrine, are not only undermining the founda- 
tions of Christian faith, but also of Christian 
morality. This was clearly evinced even in the 
Apostolic age, by the licentiousness and profli- 
gacy, engendered by heretical doctrines, against 
which St. John contends in his Epistles, concern- 
ing the Incarnation and Death of Christ. 

We cannot adequately estimate the moral hein- 
ousness of sin, without considering the sacrifice 
which it cost to redeem us from its power and 
guilt. We cannot duly understand the obliga- 
tions of love and obedience, under which we lie 
to Christ, and the motives which constrain us to 
holiness, without remembering that we are not 
our own, but have been bought with a price—the 
blood of Christ—and are therefore bound to glo- 
rify Him in our bodies which are His. See 1 
Cor. vi. 20. 

Accordingly, St. John, having stated the doc- 
trine of the Atonement, proceeds and continues 
to the end of the Epistle, to enforce the moral 
duties consequent on this doctrine. ‘‘ Beloved, if 
God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” 
He teaches us to contend earnestly for the doc- 
trine of the Atonement, as the groundwork of 
Christian duty to God and man. Cf. Pearson on 
the Creed, art. x. pp. 670-688.—M. ]. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


In love, even in God’s glorious Love thou 
livest—well, let love live also in thee!—the primal 
fount of the Love in God streams round thee, and 
onward to thee, also through thy heart; wilt 
thou enjoy it without having part thereof?—Out 
of thee must shine forth that which has been 
manifested to thee, even the love and kindness of 
God thy Saviour, which seeks that which is lost. 
Brotherly love must grow warm in filial love 
which has been kindled at the Father’s heart.— 
In thy child people recognize a member of thy 
family, thy race; and ought not our heavenly 
Father to be recognized in thee? Therefore 
exercise thyself in love of the brethren !—Dost 
thou boast of thy knowledge of God, of under- 
standing the Holy Scripture? prove it in thy 
brotherly love!—In nature thou seest His handi- 
work, the traces of His Omnipotence, in Christ 
the love-purpose of His heart, His peace-thoughts 
respecting thee (cf. Doctrinal and Ethical No. 2). 
He takes care that thy sins be atoned for, that 
thou become not estranged from Him, or keep 
remote from His life; do not build anew at the 


wall of partition between Him and thee; such 
building destroys thy life and thy salvation.— 
The anticipating offices of friendship are gratify- 
ing and humiliating; realize and receive the 
prevenient grace of God.—As He took the initia- 
tive in creation, so He had to take it also in 
redemption, which is also a creation; and how 
has He done it! Though without thee He could 
create thee, yet He neither can nor will save thee 
without thee.—Above thee rules thy Father, for 
thee the Son is sent, in thee works His Spirit; 
do not hinder the work of God for and in thee; 
do not in unkindness to thyself and thy brethren 
arrest the perfecting of His work of love.—Do 
not reject the testimony of eye- and ear-witnesses; 
surrender to it, receive it in faith, hold it fast in 
confession; exercise thyself in the love which 
thou believest and knowest. For to be unloving 
is to be ungodly, and to be ungodly is to be un- 
loving. If thou art disposed to disparage con- 
fession, recollect that like love it radiates from 
faith; confession is the love of the mouth, love 
is the confession of the deed, and both come from 
the heart.—Behind the judgments in the world’s 
history and in the history of thy life, there is a 
judgment, to stand in which is salvation and 
bliss.—The unloying must be undone in the 
judgment of Him who is Love, before the Judge 
who desired to become the Saviour.—That can- 
not be our desire in life which does not give us 
confidence in the last judgment.—Fear, which 
does not strengthen but expels love, is worthless; so 
is also that love, which is unable to overcome fear 
(cf. Doctrinal and Ethical, No. 7).—Brotherly love, 
in comparison with the love of God, isas inferior as 
is rendering unto Cesar the things that are 
Ceesar’s, in comparison with rendering unto God, 
the things that are God’s; but on that account both 
must not be undervalued, for both are enjoined 
upon us. Still it is certain that when the less 
is wanting, the greater has no room and cannot 
find the ability to practise it.—Behold of brotherly 
love: 1. The origin. 2. The measure. 8. The 
power. 4. The growth. 5. The prize and vic- 
tory.—Only in obedience to the will of God thou 
growest in the nature of God and art changing 
from a creature into a child, from a servant into 
an heir of God.—The glory of love: 1. Whence 
is it? 2. Where was it manifested? 3. What 
does it effect? 4. Whither does it lead?—The 
power of love 1. on earth with reference to the 
brethren, even to hostile ones; 2. in heaven, in 
the judgment, before God and Jesus Christ, the 
Holy One.—The perfecting of love to the 
brethren is 1. difficult, 2. appointed, 3. sure, 4. 
glorious. 

BerNarRD:—God is Love: what then is more 
precious than love? And he that abides in love, 
abides in God; what then is more sure than 
love? 

AvaustineE: —Thou beholdest the Trinity, 
when thou beholdest Love, for there are three, 
he that loveth, he that is loved, and reciprocal 
love. 

LurHer:—For what shall one say much of 
it? If one says in a lengthy way, that it is a 
lofty, noble gwalitas in the soul and the most pre- 
cious and perfect of virtues, as the philosophers 
and work-teachers discourse of it; all this is 
nothing in comparison with this word which he 


150 


pours forth in overflowing eloquence that ‘‘God 
ts Love,” and that His Being and Nature is 
wholly Love. If any one would paint and pro- 
duce a likeness of God, he must produce a pie- 
ture which is wholly love; as if the Divine Na- 
ture were nothing else than an oven and fire of 
love, filling heaven and earth. And again, if 
Love could be painted and portrayed, it ought to 
be a picture that is neither real and human, nor 
angelic and heavenly, but God Himself. See 
thus the Apostle understands to paint here, that 
he represents God and Love as identical, in order 
that by such a noble, precious and lovely pic- 
ture He may draw and attract us more to Him- 
self and to make us strive to have love among 
ourselves and to beware of envy, hatred and dis- 
cord. For as Love is a picture of God, neither a 
dead picture nor painted on paper, but a living 
Being of Divine Nature, burning and overflowing 
with whatever is good, so hatred and envy are a 
veritable picture of the devil, not human or 
devilish only, but the devil himself, whois nothing 
in his nature but an eternal burning of hatred 
and envy of God and all His works, both man and 
all creatures; so that that would be the best pic- 
ture of the devil which would represent all 
hatred and envy.—As there are also among us 
still many who hear and teach {πὸ Gospel with 
us, use the same sacraments and affect the man- 
ners of genuine Christians; but they are among 
us like chaff among the wheat; if the battle ap- 
proaches it becomes manifest whose they are and 
whither they belong. For there is nothing but 
pride, vanity, envy, contempt and the devil him- 
self.—It is not a great art to begin a Christian 
life and love; but it is an art and a task to abide 
therein and perseveringly to continue therein 
especially in the presence of temptation and op- 
position. Although there still are many rough, 
coarse people that fall off spontaneously like 
rotten worm-eaten apples or pears, and proceed 
drowned in their avarice, pride, envy, etc., they 
are spoiled, useless fruit, wholly unprofitable, 
that shalland can not remain. But we refer to 
those who are blown off or struck down by wind 
and weather, that is, those who suffer themselves 
to be changed by temptations and thoughts like 
these: Why should I abide by the doctrine? I 
well perceive, that it yields no other returns 
than those of being burdened with the disfavour, 
contempt, enmity, rage and fury of all the world, 
that I must risk my body and life, and must ever 
take the lead against the devil, the world and 
the flesh, etc. Who can come up to this and 
persevere, if that is all he is to get?—But it is 
not to be so; the true course is rather to tear 
through all opposition, to proceed without heed- 
ing obstacles, whether we meet with the sour or 
the sweet, however it fare with us, be it friend 
or enemy, or the devil himself and ever to think: 
I have not entered upon this work in order that 
the people should give, love or reward me; and 
therefore no desisting from it though I receive 
the reward of ingratitude, envy and hatred. It 
(the world) shall not be so ill to me, as to over- 
come me with its ill: I will the rather; in oppo- 
sition to it, continue to do good, regardless of 
thee or any one else, but for the sake of my 
Lord Christ, even as IIe did and still doeth. 
Srarke:—Havye we become partakers of the 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Divine Nature, if we are heavenly-minded and 
lead a heavenly life? It is infallible. As much 
true love, so much resemblance to God. Heisa 
wise teacher who grounds his exhortations more 
on the Gospel than on the Law. The power and 
efficacy of encouragements are in proportion to 
their friendliness and lovingness.—You say much 
concerning God, but lack the best\thing. You 
know Him in words, but deny Him in works. 
You do not know Him at all and will not be 
known of Him.—In order that one, provoked to 
anger, may not be overcome by the temptation 
and succumb, he should forthwith remember 
that ‘God is Love.” That will be a good medi- 
cine to him and preserve him.—None can attain 
the life of glory without having first experienced 
here on earth the life of grace in Christ.—Holy 
Scripture does not expatiate in multiplied phrases 
which mean the same thing; but what it does 
repeat, is peculiarly emphatic, and intended to 
be carefully remembered.—Nothing can be more 
sweet, agreeable and delightful to us poor men 
in the vale of misery of this world, than to hear 
and to receive the assurance that God loves us. 
The love of God is the cause and rule of our 
love.—Love is not the cause of our union with 
God, but it assures, cements, confirms, and pre- 
serves it.—Beloved, though sometimes you do 
not feel any thing of the grace of the union of 
God and your heart, if you love cordially and 
abide in love, you have sufficient evidence that 
you are nevertheless united with God.—None is 
able to commend love to others with a good con- 
science, joyfulness and success, who does not 
himself walk in love. Preachers, more especially, 
ought to remember that when they exhort others 
to love, they themselves should copy the example 
of Christ and practise love.—God is willing, if 
we do not hinder Him, to make His love more full 
and to increase its efficacy; and then all the 
powers of the inner man do also grow in us, and 
among their number, the love of our neighbour.— 
Of what avail are the best testimonials if con- 
science contradicts them? A heart, full of love, 
is the best witness of friendship with God that 
endures also in the fire of temptation.—Thou art 
pleased when aloved friend comes to see thee, 
and is thy guest for a few days. Rejoice! God, 
thy best friend, dwells in thee, abides with thee, 
and possesses thee altogether, but thou art His 
property and possession. With God thou hast all 
things.—The love of God manifested in Jesus 
Christ, is the most excellent object of our faith 
and knowledge. The more we study it, the 
greater is our taste of its sweetness.—A glorious 
mark of the Christian religion as the only Divine 
religion, viz.: it effects so great a union between 
man and God, that God is in man and man in 
God.—O, wicked man, how canst thou be joyful 
in anticipation of the judgment-day? Beware 
that thou do deceive thyself with a false security 
instead of joyfulness!—Good Christian, whenever 
thou art about to do or to omit a thing, ask thy- 
self: did my Saviour also do or omit this? It 
will be of great benefit to thee and happily 
further thee in thy Christian course.—Be not 
afraid if thou art summoned before an earthly 
court of justice; if thou lookest joyfully forward 
to the great judgment of the world, why shouldest 
thou not be equally joyful in respect of a little 


CHAP. IV. 7-21. 


151 


pl a. cn an La eee 


human judgment day? Wherever a Christian 
may be, he should always suffer himself to be 
seen without fear or dismay. [Verse of old Ger- 
rian hymn.—M. ]. 

A. H. Francxe :—One droplet of faith is more 
glorious than a whole ocean of science, even 
though it be the historical science of the Divine 
word. 

Heusner:—Love has illuminating power, 
while hatred darkens the soul. The more you 
love, the greater the brightness of your know- 
ledge; the more you love, the less it is possible 
for you to be deceived.—Want of love is a token 
of want of real knowledge of God. All know- 
ledge, all theology must be rooted in love. Theo- 
logy without the love of God is deception and 
show. What dry metaphysics have often been 
called religion and philosophy of religion, with- 
out containing a breath of love!—God who is 
Love can only be known 6 prazi, ex usu; as long 
as I have not made personal experience of the in- 
finite Love of God, I can at the most only repeat 
what others say of God. Lauding the love of 
God from what is seen of Him in nature, is not 
the shadow of the love of God in Christ.—Proud 
philosophy could assert virtue and morality with- 
out the love of God and even go as far as to 
maintain that virtue without religion is even 
stronger and purer [than virtue with religion— 
M.].—Want of love to God is the most telling 
proof of the fall. For in the statw integro our 
first sign of life ought to be love to God, even as 
a babe is naturally drawn to its mother’s breast. 
It is true that our love to God proceeds from a 
sense of shame, from conviction [of sin and in- 
gratitude—M.]; but that cannot now be altered: 
and he that would deny it ought first to turn the 
whole world round. And who will most readily 
own it? They who have begun to love God: they 
are painfully aware how little they love God!— 
If there had been no apostasy, no breach, what 
necessity would there be for reconciliation? If 
reconciliation could have been effected without 
the Son, by our own efforts, by our own improve- 
ment and amending, what purpose would have 
been served by the sending of the Son ?—This is 
the miracle of love in God, that He kept immoy- 
able in His Love and continued to love His crea- 
ture now as ever, sought the creature although 
the creature had rebelled in enmity against Him. 
The love of God, therefore is eternal, unchange- 
able and having its cause in Himself, without 
having ever been greater or less than it is. This 
miracle of love no man can know before he has 
become aware of his misery, has had his eyes 
opened and seen with tearful eyes how loving 
the Lord is.—God has loved us; He has also 
deemed my neighbour worthy of His love: if 
God loves him, am I to refuse loving him? 
A knowledge of the love of God that has re- 
mained unfruitful, is not yet perfected.—There 
is sympathy or antipathy between the plants of 
God’s planting and of those of his enemy’s 
planting. The children of God are sensible of 
the spirit of affinity or antipathy in others. So 
it is said of Coccejus, who beyond all other things 
Strove after a pure heart, that he frequently 
knew men at the first encounter.—He that under- 
rates historical evidence, overthrows the whole 
foundation of Christianity and opens the gate 


and the door to all deception and delusion. 
Historical knowledge and personal spiritual life- 
experience together constitute true Christianity. 
God is through and through Love, His whole 
Essence, His real Nature is Love, 7. 6. is essen- 
tially His property to communicate Himself, to 
impart Himself, to cause His glory and felicity 
to stream forth on others [1. 6. His creatures— 
M.], as it is the essential property of the sun to 
shine. It is true that the love of God, like the 
heat of the sun, manifests itself to men only by 
way of gradation. God is Love to all who stand 
in love and turn to His Love, but He isa con- 
suming fire to those who stand outside of love. 
Love spurned brings torment: evil men, because 
of their own guilt, experience a sense of 
wrath. Every thing depends upon the attitude 
of men towards God.—The Bible is, as it were, 
the trumpet of the love of God, not nature, by a 
long way; it is only to believing Christians 
that nature becomes the trumpet of the love of 
God. The first tones of the love of God may be 
heard in Gen. i. and iii.; but they sound loudest 
in the New Testament.—Man is not lost as long 
as he believes in love; but he is lost, when he 
loses that belief. Chrysostom says that the 
devil would be saved if he could believe in the 
love of God.—Love changes God the Judge into 
God the Father.—He that cannot confide in love, 
is unable to endure the look of the Most Loving. 
Who but those who have pure and indefatigable 
love are in this world like God and representa- 
tives of God ?—Where we experience fear, a se- 
cret dread, aversion to and distrust of God, love 
is not yet perfected; fear is the first discipline of 
boys.—v. 19. The whole wonderful structure of 
the Christian system; the one half is morality: 
to love God with every thing implied therein; 
the other half the doctrine of faith, the condi- 
tioning ground: the love of God to us sinners in 
Christ. The ground must be before the super- 
structure.—Love is most touching where it pre- 
vents the unworthy.—We can only exhibit our 
love to God the Unseen in His children that are 
seen.—Christianity indissolubly unites the love 
of God and the love of the brethren; its charac- 
teristic is that in it religion and virtue commin- 
gle in the Spirit of love. 

Gerox (1 Jno. iv. 7-12): Love the fundamental 
law of the world: 1. As written in heaven: for 
God is Love. 2. As written on the cross: for 
Christ is Love. 38. As written in owr hearts: for 
Christianity is Love. 

Leonnarpti (1 Jno. iv. 9): The manifestation of 
the love of God to us in holy Christmas. It shines 
forth: 1. from the Divine Christmas-gift, and 2. 
from its blessed destination for us. It was mani- 
fested 1. in God sending Wis only-begotten Son into 
the world, 2. in that we should live through Him. 

Cuauss :—The sending of Christ is the greatest 
proof of Divine Love. 1. Christ is the Only Be- 
gotten. 2. He brings life to the world. 

The same (on 1 Jno. iy. 12-16) :—The mystery 
of the Divine Essence. 1. In which sense does It 
always remain concealed? 2. In what form has 
It been revealed? 8. With what eye only are we 
able to recognize It? 

WitHELmM :—The Church of the Lord. 
good it has; 2. The confession it makes: 
signs whereby it is known. 


1. The 
the 


152 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


LeonuHARDI:— Whereon is based our Trinity-re- 
joicing? 1. We know that the Father sent the 
Son to be the Saviour of the world (vv. 14, 15); 
we have learned in the Son the love which the 
Father has in regard to us (vv. 15, 16); we 
know from our love to one another, that He has 
given us of His Spirit. 

Luruarpr (1 Jno. iv. 9, Advent-Sermon) :— 
The love of God in Christ is our life. I. The love 
of God; 2. The sending of his Son; 3. Our life. 

SpurGeon (1 Jno. iv. 19):—Real love viewed 
1. as to its origin, 2. as to its maintenance, 3. as 
to its progress. 

AHLFELD (Marriage address on 1 Jno. iv. 19, 
and Sermon on 1 Jno. iy. 9-16) :— With threefold 
bonds are we tied to the Triune God. 1. In the love 
among one another God abides in us; 2. In the 
Holy Ghost we abide in God and God in us; 3. 
In the confession of the Son of God, God abides in 
us and we in God. 

On the Epistle for the first Sunday after Trinity, 
1 Jno. iv. 16-21. 

Hevuspner:—The belief, that God is Love, our 
only consolation in evil times. 1. Why is it thus? 
2. How do we become capable of this consolation? 
The Divine nature of love. 1. Proof (vv. 16-18); 
2. Inferences (vv. 19-21).—God is Love.—1. Ex- 
planation. 2. Proof (also Defence); 3. Duties, 
arising therefrom, incumbent upon us.—Belief in 
the love of God, 1. Description of what it is, and 
whereon it is founded; 2. The power of this be- 
lief; 3. Inferences (resistance to attacks on that 
belief; its animation by the imitation of Christ). 

C. J. Nirzscu (1815 during the siege of Wit- 
tenberg, inaugural Sermon on the Epistle for Ist 
Sunday after Trinity, 1 Jno. iv. 16-21):—The 
value of true love under the fear of exciting prospects 
of the future. Love exalts us above the whole of 
our earthly future. Her pains are deep, her 
complainings sincere; yes, she looks so much 
the more sadly out into the future, because she 
can never suffer for herself alone, but true love 
can nevermore cease to confide or despair of 
deliverance. To all true love is accorded the 
privilege of overcoming the world and to soar 
beyond time in the strength of true faith. She 
casts the brightest looks into the shadow of the 
future. She is not blind through fear, and knows 
that every time will have its own salvation, its 
own footprints of Divine Love, from the ruins of 
the old there will spring up the new and the 
better, in the school of distress there will mature 
and prosper a nobler liberty and wisdom of the 
nations, our children and the grandchildren of 
our race in a rejuvenated world will think with 
emotion and edification of their fathers, and we 
ourselves shall never fall short of thé assistance 
and comfort which we need in our weakness. 
And bright-eyed love has also an indefatigable 
arm; it makes the best provision for whatever 
may be in store. 

ScuLE1erMACHER :—Verfection of love. 1. The 
token, indicated by the Apostle, of the perfec- 
tion of love. 2. That that, whereof he treats, 
can only be achieved by the perfection of love. 

Kaprrr:—God is Love, and love only makes us 
one with God. 

Gerox :—Another love sermon. 1. The eternal 
fountain of love. 2. The holy duty of love. 8. The 


Ranke :—Life in love is the noblest life! let that 
be our conviction; we will abide in this love! let 
that be our resolve; then God will abide with us, 
let that be our blessing. 

J. Miitter:—Love, the Essence of the Christian 
life. 1. The Christian life begins with love to 
God through Christ; 2. it develops into love to 
our neighbour; 3. it perfects itself in the perfec- 
tion of this twofold love. 

Hariess:— Who knows and loves the living God 
who is Love? 1. He who instead of deifying his 
own love, knows and loves God in His love-mani- 
festation in Christ; 2. he who, instead of loving 
God without fear, in his love fears God without 
torment; 3. he who, instead of calling in such 
love all the world his brethren, loves every one, 
but after the manner of God in Christ. 

Spirta:—TZhe word of the Holy Apostle John 
concerning love. 1. A word of doctrine, wherein 
he teaches us love; 2. A word of exhortation, 
wherein he exhorts us to practice love. 

Craus Harms:—Let us love God! Consider 1. 
The ground of the love of God, 2. its power and 
manifestation inwardly, 3. its power and manifes- 
tation outwardly. 

Boxse:—God is love! 1. A confession of grati- 
tude (v. 8); 2. a voice of comfort (vv. 17, 18); ὃ. 
a rule of life (vv. 19, 20). 

Frorey:—TZhe hallowing power of love on the heart 
of man. 1. It unites the heart of man separated 
from God (vy. 16); 2. it calms—the anxious hea,t 
(vv. 17,18); 8. it warms—the cold heart (v.19); 4. 
it purifies—the impure and sinful heart (vy. 20); 
it animates and fructifies—the dead heart (vy. 21). 

GenzKEN (Confession-address):— What do I yet 
lack of true Christianity? 1. Its beginning is that 
we know the love which God has to us. 2. Its pro- 
gress, that we abide in this love; 3. Its full measure, 
that the experience of its hallowing power expels the 
fear of death and the judgment; 4. The test of all 
this is brotherly love. 

Prearson:—y. 9. Our belief in Christ, as the 
eternal Son of God, is necessary to raise us unto 
a thankful acknowledgment of the infinite love 
of God, appearing in the sending of His only- 
begotten Son into the world to die for sinners. 
This love of God is frequently extolled and ad- 
mired by the Apostles. See Jno. iii. 16; Rom. 
viii. 5; viii. 82, If we look upon all this as 
nothing else but that God should cause a man to 
be born after another manner than other men, 
and when he was so born after a peculiar man- 
ner, yet a mortal man, should deliver him to die 
for the sins of the world; I see no such great 
expression of His love in this way of redemption 
more than would have appeared, if He had re- 
deemed us in any other way. It is true indeed, 
that the reparation of lapsed man is no act of 
absolute necessity in respect of God, but that he 
hath as freely designed our redemption as our 
creation: considering the misery from which we 
are redeemed, and the happiness to which we are 
invited, we cannot but acknowledge the singular 
love of God, even in the act of redemption itself; 
but yet the Apostles have raised that considera- 
tion higher, and placed the choicest mark of the 
love of God in choosing such means, and perform- 
ing in that manner our reparation, by sending 
His Only-begotten into the world; by not sparing 


true test of love. 4. The blissful happiness of love. | His own Son, by giving and delivering Him up 


CHAP. IV. 7-21. 


to be scourged and crucified for us, and the esti- 
mation of this act of God’s love must necessarily 
increase proportionably to the dignity of the Son 
thus sent into the world; because the more 
worthy the Person of Christ before He suffered, 
the greater His condescension unto such a suffer- 
ing condition; and the nearer His relation to the 
Father, the greater His love to us, for whose 
sakes He sent Him to suffer. Wherefore to dero- 
gate any way from the Person and Nature of our 
Saviour before He suffered, is so far to under- 
value the love of God, and consequently to come 
short of that acknowledgment and thanksgiving 
which is due unto Him for it. If then the send- 
ing of Christ into the world were the highest act 
of the love of God which could be expressed; if 
we be obliged to a return of thankfulness some 
way correspondent to such infinite love; if such 
a return can never be made without a true sense 
of that infinity, and a sense of that infinity of love 
cannot consist without an apprehension of an 
infinite dignity of nature in the Person sent; 
then it is absolutely necessary to believe, that 
Christ is so the Only-begotten Son of the Father, 
as to be of the same substance with Him, of glory 
equal, of majesty coéternal.—M. ]. 

[Barrow: (on y. 9).—How indeed possibly 
could God have demonstrated a greater excess of 
kindness to us, than by thus, for our sake and 
good, sending His dearest Son out of His bosom 
into this sordid and servile state, subjecting Him 
to all the infirmities of our frail nature, exposing 
Him to the worst inconveniences of our low condi- 
tion? What expressions can signify, what compa- 
risons can set out, the stupendous vastness of this 
kindness? If we should imagine that a great 
prince should put his only son (a son most lovely, 
and worthily most beloved) into rags, should dis- 
miss him from his court, should yield him up to 
the hardest slavery, merely to the intent that he 
hereby might redeem from captivity the meanest 
and basest of his subjects, how faint a resem- 
blance would this be of that immense goodness, 
of that incomparable mercy, which in this in- 
stance the King of all the world hath declared 
toward us His poor vassals, His indeed unworthy 
rebels?—And what greater reason of joy can 
there be, than such an assurance of His love, 
on whose love all our good dependeth, in whose 
love all our felicity consisteth? What can be 
more delightful ‘than to view the face of our Al- 
mighty Lord so graciously smiling upon us?—M. ]. 

[Bernarp, de Nativ. Serm. 1. Apparuerat ante 
potentia in rerum creatione, apparebat Sapientia in 
earum gubernatione; sed benignitas misericordiz 
nune maxime apparuit in humanitate. 

P. Leo M., de Nativ. Serm. 1. Semper quidem 
diversis modis, multisque mensuris humano generi 
bonitas divina consuluit, et plurima providentiz suse 
munera omnibus retro seculis clementer impertit ; sed 
in novissimis temporibus omnem abundantiam solite 
benignitatis excessit ; quando in Christo ipsa ad pec- 
catores misericordia, ipsa ad errantes veritas, ipsa 
ad mortuos vita descendit, ete.—M. ]. 

[Secker: (on v. 18).—For want of cultivating 
the love of God, the thoughts of Him are dreadful 
to the generality of men. Too many are tempted 
to wish in their hearts, if they durst, that He 
were not, or had no regard to human conduct; 
and if any of them can but persuade themselves 


153 


——$———— τ  --Ἐ.ἘἘἘ.ςς-. 


for’ a while on the strength of some poor cayil, 
to hope what they wish, they triumph in the 
imagined discovery, that sets them so much at 
ease. From the same default, humbler and 
righter minds consider Him very often in no bet- 
ter light, than as a rigid lawgiver arbitrarily ex- 
acting a number of almost impracticable duties, 
and enforcing them with the dread of insupport- 
able punishments: whence they are ready to 
sink under the terrors of-religion, even while 
they are conscientiously fulfilling its precepts. 
Looking on God as the object of love would rec- 
tify these mistaken conceptions entirely. We 
should all see and feel, that a Being of infinite 
goodness, directed by infinite wisdom, is the 
highest blessing: and the want of such an one 
would be the greatest calamity that is possible: 
we should be satisfied that the strictest of His 
laws, and the severest of their sanctions, are 
means which He knows to be needful for our 
good; that His mercy will forgive on repentance 
our past transgressions of them; that His grace 
will strengthen us to keep them better; and that 
He will never reject a-soul affectionately devoted 
to Him. In proportion then as we are 80, all 
terrifying apprehensions will vanish from us. 
‘‘There is no fear in love” saith the Apostle; 
‘but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear 
hath torment.’’—M. ]. 

[Jortin:—The love of God differs so much 
from the love of sensible objects, and from our 
other passions, that it can hardly be called a 
passion in the same sense in which they are so 
called. It differs in this, that it is at first raised, 
and afterwards kept up, by reason. It is there- 
fore a religious habit and virtue, which no other 
passion is, unless it hath God and morality and 
religion for its objects. In this also it differs 
from them, that being both produced and pre- 
served by reason, it is a sober and moderate af- 
fection, accompanied with no blind impetuosity, 
no restless uneasiness, no violent commotion of 
mind, like other passions; and as it riseth not to 
the same height with them, so neither does it 
sink as low at other times, but shews itself in an 
uniform and sedate love of righteousness, of 
every thing that God approves. Some persons, 
not duly considering this, sincerely desire to 
please God, and carefully endeavour to lead a 
good life; and yet sometimes are afraid that they 
have no love for God, because they experience 
not in themselves that warmth of affection, to 
which others pretend, and which is expressed 
and required in some books of devotion. They 
may learn from the Scriptures, that where there 
is obedience there is always love; and that who- 
ever delights in holiness, and justice, and good- 
ness, and mercy, and truth, may reasonably con- 
clude that his heart is right towards God. 
Others looking upon the love of God as upon a 
mere passion, a disposition of mind producing 
devotion and ending there, have excited in them- 
selves a high zeal and affection for God, and a 
firm persuasion, that they were His favourites: 
and, having done this, have thought themselves 
arrived at Christian perfection; whilst at the 
same time they have perhaps been under the do- 
minion of evil habits, and addicted to wrath, 
malice, covetousness, censoriousness, injustice, 
pride, ambition, sensuality. This strange mix- 


154 


ture of hypocrisy, vice and enthusiasm, hath 
been common in all ages, and ever will be so. 
There are always those, whose religion and de- 
votion is, to use the words of St. Paul, ‘‘sound- 
ing brass,” or clamour and confidence; whilst 
true goodness is modest and unaffected, and 
teaches men to make less noise, to live more hon- 
estly. To preserve us from such delusions, 
Christ hath told us, that we should either keep 
His commandments, or not pretend to love Him; 
and that it signifies nothing to say to Him, ‘Lord, 
Lord,” and not to do what He requires.—Other 
love towards God than this the Scriptures know 
not: they never recommend that spiritual fever, 
those warm transports, and that bold familiarity, 
which some zealots affect; nor that cold, refined, 
mysterious, and disinterested devotion, which 
another sort of fanatics require: for, first, the 
love of God is sober reason, and not blind pas- 
sion; reverence, and not presumption: secondly, 
it is gratitude; and wé “love Him, because He 
first loved us.”"—M. ]. 

Horne: (on v. 21).—Observe the firm basis on 
which is forever fixed the morality of the Gospel. 
How clear in its principles! how powerful in its 
motives! ‘We love God, because He first loved 
us;”’ “and sent His Son to be the propitiation for 
our sins. If God so loved us, we ought also to 
love one another.” For ‘he who loveth Him 
that begat, loveth Him also that is begotten of 
Him.” The head of the most unlearned cannot 
but comprehend the meaning of these few words: 
and the heart of the most learned must feel the 
force of them. Such is the ground of that char- 
ity, which performeth every duty of social life, 
and fulfilleth the law. To inculcate and produce 
in us this heavenly disposition, is the end of the 
Gospel and all its doctrines. It is deduced in 
Scripture even from those that may seem to be 
of the most mysterious and speculative nature: 
the unity of the Divine Persons; the Divinity 
and the satisfaction of Christ; doctrines, which 
cannot therefore be denied or degraded, without 
removing or proportionably lessening the most 
endearing and affecting incitements to the Chris- 
tian life. Indeed the happy temper of a Chris- 
tian is the natural and kindly effect of the great 
evangelical truths, when treasured up in the 
mind, and made the subjects of frequent medita- 
tion. The ideas of a reconciled God; a Saviour 
and Intercessor on high; a gracious Spirit, in- 
forming our ignorance, purifying our hearts, re- 
lieving our necessities, alleviating our cares, and 
comforting our sorrows: such ideas as these 
enable us to bridle the appetites of the body, and 
to calm the emotions of the mind; to bear with 
patience and cheerfulness the calamities of life: 
they sweeten the tempers, and harmonize the 
affections, resolving them all into one, diversified 
according to the different situation of its proper 
object; of which grief laments the absence, and 
fear apprehends thg loss; desire pursues it; hope 
has it in view; anger rises against obstruction, 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


and joy triumphs in possession. Thus religion 
fixes the heart on its treasure, in faith without 
wavering, and resignation without reserve: it 
draws the affections upwards towards heaven, as 
the sun does the exhalations of the earth, to 
return in fruitful showers, and bless the world. 
M.]. 
pe, and Sermon Themes. 
v. 8. Letanp, Joun, The goodness of God. 
4.Serm. Disc. I. p. 225. 
Dwicut, T., Benevolence of God is 
proved by the works of crea- 
tion and providence.—Be- 
nevolence of God, as exhib- 
ited by revelation.—Theo- 
logy I. pp. 119, 139. 
Scorr, T., God is Love. Works, 4, 
69. 
v. 9. TrztLotson, ΑΒΡ., The love of God to 
men in the incarnation of 
Christ. Serm. 6, 3. 

ΞΊΜΕΟΝ, C., The love of God in giving 
His Son for us. Works 20, 
479. 

Henry, Puit., Christ is our Propi- 
tiation. M. Henry’s Works. 
Appendix, 40. 

The unpurchased love of God in the 
redemption of the world by 
Jesus Christ, a great argu- 
ment for Christian beneyo- 
lence. 

Horne, Br., Charity recommended on 
its true motive. Disc. 5, 
441. ‘ 

Savriy, La tranquillité qui nait de 
la parfaite charité. Serm. 
6. 483. 

M’Cueyne, R. M., The perfect love 
of God to us. Remains, 368. 

Erskine, R., Preventing love; or 
God’s love the cause of our 
love to Him. Works, 2, 1. 

Warptaw, R., On the question how 
far disinterestedness is an 
essential quality in legitimate 
love to God. Christian 
Ethics, 278. 

Cuatmers, T., Gratitude, not a sor- 
did affection. Works, 8, 222. 

Howe, Joun, The love of God and 
our brother, considered in 
Seventeen Sermons. Works, 
ia 

WittraMms, Isaac, Love the mark of 
God’schildren. Serm. 2, 51. 

Smatrivae, Br., The necessary con- 
nection between the love of 
God and our brother. Ser- 
mons 810. 

Witperrorcer, 5., The love of the 
brethren. Sermons on sey- 
eral occasions. 78.—M. ]. 


vv..9, 10. 


vy. 10. 


vv. 10, 11. 


Ape Ge 


vy. 18. 


vv. 18-21. 
vy. 19. 


y. 20. 


y. 21. 


© 0 - Ὁ Or Ὁ bo 


CHAP. V. 1-12. 155 


8. The power of faith (vv. 1-5), its testimony (vv. 6-10), and substance (vv. 11.12). 


CuapPTerR V. 1-12. 


Whosoever‘ believeth that Jesus is the Christ? is born of God: and every one that 
loveth him that begat loveth him also* that is begotten of him. By thist we know 
that πο love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments 
are not grievous. For® whatsoever’ is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the 
victory that overcometh® the world, even our® faith. Who is he” that overcometh the 
world, but" he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by 
water and blood,” even Jesus Christ*; not by water only, but! by water and blood. 
And it is the Spirit’® that beareth witness, because the Spirit’’ is truth. For there are 
three that bear record’ in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these 
three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, 
and the blood: and these three agree in one.* If we receive the witness of men, the 
witness of God is greater: for’ this is the witness of God which” he hath testified of 


10 his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness” in himself: he that 


believeth not God” hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that 


11 God gave of his Son.* And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal 
12 life, and this™ life is in his Son.* He that hath the Son* hath life; and he that 


hath not the Son of God hath not 1118." 


Verse 1. German: “Every one that believeth,” and so E. V. in second clause.—M.] 
2 German: “That Jesus is Christ.”—M.] 
8 Kat before γεγεννημένον is the reading of A.Sin.(which has τὸ instead of τὸ ν) and several 
minusc. 
{ German: “loveth also Him that is begotten of Him.”—M.] 


Verse 2. [Ἔν τούτῳ, in this, hereby.—M.] 
δτηρῶμεν, cannot be considered to be supported by A. which omits the following words αὑτὴ γάρ 
ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, iva τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, sothat τηρῶμεν there might come 
from y. 3, although the omission of said words is more easily accounted for, even if we read τηρῶμεν 
and not ποιῶμεν (B. and al.) y. 2; but Sin. G. K. al. abundantly sustain the reading in question. 


Verse 4. [6 German: “because” so Alford.—M. 
Trav τὸ; German: “all that;” so Alford.—M.] 
ts ἡ νίκη ἡ νικήσασα τὸν κόσμον; German: “the Victory which hath overcome the world;” Alford: 
“has conquered.’—M.] 
9nu@v;s0 A. B.G.K, Sin; ὑ μῶ ν, only in unimportant Codd. 
Verse 5. 10 Sin. reads ὃ ἐ after τίς, B. Κ᾿ have ὃ ἐ after τίς ἐστιν; othersread yap; e.g. Syriac; others prefix 
καὶ, while A.and al. (G. Vulg., Lachm., Tischend., Alf—M.] have no conjunction at all. [German: 
“But who is it, that etc.’”—M. | 
[1 German; “If not he;” Alf. “except he.”—M.] 


Verse 6. Meat πνεύματος after αἵματος, though found in A. Sin., several minuscules and versions, is 
evidently an interpretation, like the still less authentic καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι after ἐν τῷ 
αἵματι. 

13 The Article ὃ before χριστός found in B., is omitted by A. G. Sin. al. 
(}t German: “not im the water only” so Alford.—M.] 
16. German: “ but in the water and in the blood.”—M. 
6 German: “And the Spirit is it that testifieth.’—M. . 
7 The reading χριστὸς, instead of τὸ πνεῦμα before ἡ ἀλήθεια is only very feebly supported. 
Equally devoid of all firm foundation are several readings in this verse which do not even touch the 
sense, 6. 9. μόνῳ, ἀλλὰ kai, ἀλήθεια Without the Article. 


Verse 7. [18 German: “ For they are three that bear witness;” Alford “For those who bear witness are three.” Ger- 
man: “And the three are one.” Alford: “And the three concur in one.”—M.] 


Verse 9. [19 German: “ because.”—M.] 
30 ὅτι is the reading of A. B. Sin. al. instead of ἥν, Rec. [K. L. al. German; “because that is the testimony 
of God, that He hath testified of His Son.” Alford: “The testimony of God is this, that He hath borne 
testimony concerning His Son.”—M.] 


Verse 10. 21 The addition of rod θεοῦ after μαρτυρίαν in A, is wanting in B. Sin. al. 
τῷ θεῷ in Β. 6. Sin.is more authentic than τῷ vig of A. and in better agreement with the context. 
[33 German: “ He that believeth in the Son of God, hath the testimony in himself; he that believeth not God, 
hath made Him a liar, because He hath not believed in the testimony, which God hath given concerning 
His Son.” ‘The last clause is more correctly rendered thus: “which God hath testified concerning His 
Son.” The variation “record” in this verse in E. V. should by all means be ayoided.—M. ] 
Verse 11. Ξε ἐστιν, generally at the end of the verse; in A. between αὕτη and ἣ ζωὴ. 
36 German: “And this is the life in His Son.”—M.] 


Verse 12. Ξ τοῦ θεοῦ after the first τὸν vidy, as Luther reads, is too feebly supported; it is wanting in the best 
Codd., also in Sin. 
(27 German: “hath not the life.”—M.] 
ἘΈΘΙ τ: τ ἘΞ ee Ἂς ee) 
* For particulars concerning this passage see Critical Note on τυ. 7, 8.—M. 


156 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


CRITICAL NOTE ON VERSES 7 AND 8. 

After ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες in v. 7, fol- 
lows: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος Kai τὸ ἅγιον 
πνεῦμα. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσιν γ. 8, καὶ τρεῖς 
εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ"- πὰ Cod. 173, 
not however in the original Cod. of the 11th cen- 
tury, but only in a copy of it made in the 16th 
century; Codd. 34 and 162, belonging to the 
same period, viz. the 15th and 16th centuries, 
omit the words καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἔν εἰσιν, and the 
Articles before πατὴρ, λόγος and ἅγιον πνεῦμα, 
which shows the mechanical translation from the 
Vulgate. Said words are wanting in ALL THE 
Greek Copices, also in the Coprex Srnairicus, 
in ALMOST ALL THE ANCIENT VERSIONS, INCLUDING 
THE LATIN, as late as the 8th century, and since 
that time they are found in three variations. 
Notwithstanding the trinitarian controversies, 
they are not referred to by a SINGLE GREEK 
FATHER, OR BY ANY OF THE OLDER Latin CHURCH 
Farners. For the allusions of Tertullian (adv. 
Prax. 25. connexus Patris in filio et filii in Para- 
cleto, tres efficit cohwrentes alterum ex altero; QUI 
TRES UNUM suNT), and of Cyprian (ep. ad Jubai- 
anum: cum TRES UNUM sunt) are to Jno. x. 30; 
xvi. 5; and if the latter says in De Unitate Eccle- 
sie p. 79. ‘‘Dicit Dominus: ego et Pater unum 
sumus; ET IreRuM de Patre et Filio et Spiritu 
Sancto Scriptum est: BT HI TRES UNUM SUNT, the 
reference in tferum is clearly to this place, but to v. 
8, to wit, according to the symbolical interpreta- 
tion [of the words τὸ πνεῦμα, τὸ ὕδωρ and τὸ αἷμα 
of the Trinity, as given in the Schol. by Matthei: 
οἱ τρεῖς δὲ εἶπεν ἀρσενικῶς, ὅτι σύμβολα ταῦτα τῆς 
τριάδος, and in the Schol.: τουτέστι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ 
ἅγιον καὶ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ, and on ἔν εἰσιν: 
τουτέστι μία ϑεότης, εἷς ϑεός]. as Facundus of Her- 
miane in the 6th century understood Cyprian, in 
Pro defens. trium capitum 1, 3 [tres sunt qui testimo- 
nium dant (in terra?). Spiritus, aqua et sanguis, hi 
tres unum sunt... . quod Joannis apostoli testimo- 
nium Cyprianus... . de Patre, Filio et Spiritu Sancto 
intelligit.—M.], who was not unacquainted with 
and free from mystical interpretations (the seam- 
less coat, a type of Church unity, etc.). The afore- 
cited Greek scholia contain unmistakable traces of 
the allegorical interpretation. The reading may 
gradually have originated in them and the pas- 
sages from Cyprian, whose interpretation of the 
Persons of the Trinity was placed in juxtaposition 
with the text on which it was based. These 
words were mentioned first in a work which is to 
be ascribed to Vigilius of Thapsus, at the close 
of the 5th century; they occur more frequently 
afterwards and are found in most Latin transla- 
tions [also in several German translations made 
from the Vulgate—M.]. After a Greek trans- 
lation of the transactions of the Lateran Council 
of 1215 they were first inserted in Greek in the 
Complutensian edition (of 1502 to 1514). Eras- 
mus, who did not insert them in his editions of 
the Greek New Testament of 1516 and 1518, re- 
ceived them in the version of 1521, and the third 
edition of 1522, yielding to the pressure of the 
Church (pium est, nostrum sensum semper ecclesiv 
judicio submittere), and with reference to the Codex 
Britannicus (—codex 84), in order to justify 
himself before the learned. [Erasmus had com- 
mitted himself to their insertion if they were 


found in any Greek Manuscript. Learning that 
they were found in said Codex Britannicus, he 
inserted them in the 8rd edition of 1522 and 
added the note: ‘Hz hoe igitur Codice Britannico 
reposuimus, quod in nostris dicebatur deesse: ne cui 
sit ansa calumniandi. Tametsi suspicor codicem il- 
lum ad nostros esse correctum.”—M.]. Then Rob- 
ert Stephanus received them 1546-1569, Beza 
1565-1576 and the Text. Recept. sanctioned the 
citizenship of this reading. Luther never trans- 
lated these words, but commented upon them in 
his second commentary on this Epistle, although 
he had pronounced them spurious in his first 
commentary. They are omitted in all German 
Wittenberg Bibles from 1522-1545; they are first 
inserted in Lehmann’s Quarto Wittenberg edition 
of 1596, although they are still wanting in 
later editions and in the Quarto edition of 
1620. They appear first in the Ziirich edition 
of 1529; the next edition of 1531 has this passage 
in smaller type, the later editions insert it in 
brackets, which were not abandoned until 1597. 
The Basle edition of 1552 gives it already with- 
out brackets. Of the Frankfort editions, the 
Quarto of 1582 was the first in which this pas- 
sage is inserted, although it is omitted in the 
Octavo edition of the same year. It was of no 
avail that Luther considered these words as a 
clumsy addition directed against the Arians 
which was wanting in the Greek Bibles, and 
that Bugenhagen, on the appearance in 1549, of a 
lectionary, containing these words, at Witten- 
berg, gave this warning: ‘‘Obsecro chalcographos 
et eruditos viros, ut illam additionem omittant et re- 
stituant greca sux priori integritati et puritati propter 
veritatem.”’—The genuineness of this passage was 
still attempted to be defended in the 17th cen- 
tury. Lastly Bengel still upheld it [but with the 
arbitrary assumption, that the text read origin- 
ally thus: “ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. 
Τὸ πνεῦμα κ. τ. A. εἰς τὸ ἔν εἰσιν. Υ. 8. Καὶ τρεῖς 
εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ, ὁ λόγος 
καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα" καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν. ΑΡ- 
parat, Crit.—M.], who was followed by v. Meyer, 
Sander, Besser and Mayer.—Compare Gries- 
bach’s diatribe ad ἢ. l. in ed. a. 1806; Rickli 
onthis passage; Tischendorf editio major 1859, 
tom. 2. p. 225-228.—This critical, external evi- 
dence is fully sustained by internal evidence, 
viz. the exegetical reasons against these words. 
The idea of a witness ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ cannot be 
carried out. Hence certain commentators, δ. g. 
a Lapide, change the testari in σοῖο into a testari 
de colo, or find in it a description of the nature 
of the testimony (S. Schmidt, Spener), or of the 
witnesses (Bengel). Moreover the collocation of 
the words ὁ πατήρ and ὁ λόγος is altogether con- 
trary to John’s diction, which gives only ὁ ϑεὸς 
and ὁ λόγος or ὁ πατήρ and ὁ υἱός in juxtaposition 
(Jno. i. 1 sqq.; v. 21 sqq.; xiv. 9sqq.) Again 
τὸ ἔν can only be interpreted of unity of essence 
and the context affords no ground for such an 
interpretation. The advocates of the paSsage 
have also recourse to arbitrary expedients, δ. g. 
Bengel who places v. 8 before v. 7 [see above— 
M.]. Lastly we cannot consider them to have 
been inserted by orthodex Christians against the 
Arians (as Luther thinks), the reference being 
toa testimony on earth. The fact is that they 
cannot be used without arbitrariness grammati- 


CHAP. V. 1-12. 


157 


cally, dialectically or logically. Cf. Huther 2d 
edition, p. 228 sq.—[Huther: Luther remarks 
on this passage: “It seems that this verse was 
inserted by the orthodox with reference to the 
Arians, which insertion however was not congruous, 
because he does not discourse of the witnesses in 
heaven, but of the witnesses on earth, here and 
there.” This is the opinion of most modern ex- 
positors, excepting Besser and Sander. If we 
look at the contents of the whole Epistle, it is in- 
deed not difficult to harmonize the thought of the 
three witnesses in heaven with scattered sayings 
in this Epistle; but it does not follow from this 
that it is appropriate or even necessary at the 
place where it occurs. On the contrary this is 
manifestly not the case, since neither the verses 
immediately following or preceding, with which 
γ. 7 is intimately connected by ὅτι, contain any 
reference whatsoever to such a trinitarian testi- 
mony in heayen. The specification of the three 
witnesses: πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ, αἷμα, is clearly and 
plainly substantiated by what precedes, but this 
is not the case with respect to that of the three 
witnesses: ὁ πατῆρ, ὁ λόγος, τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον; this 
trinity is introduced abruptly, without any prep- 
aration; but the sequel also militates against it, 
especially since it is altogether uncertain which 
testimony is meant by the μαρτυρία του ϑεοῦ, v. 9, 
that of the three in heaven, or that of the three 
on earth.—To this must be added that these 
two different testimonies are placed in juxtapo- 
sition without being connected together; it is 
said, indeed, that the two three witnesses agree 
together, but nothing is said of the relation of 
the two threes to one another.—The thought per 
se, moreover, lacks clearness; for what are we 
to understand by a testimony in heaven? Ben- 
gel (with whom Sander agrees) says indeed: 
“Non fertur testimonium in σοῖο, sed in terra: qui 
autem testantur, sunt in terra, sunt in celo; 1. 6. uli 
sunt nature terrestris et humanex, hi autem nature 
divine et gloriose.”’ But the untenableness of this 
proposition is evident, on the one hand, from the 
circumstance that ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ does not belong 
to εἰσιν, but to μαρτυροῦντες, that consequently 
the text absolutely says nothing of a being in 
heaven, but asserts a testifying in heaven, and on 
the other, from the consideration that the πνεῦμα 
which is afterwards connected with ὕδωρ and 
αἷμα is to be conceived as something earthly and 
human.—Add to this the non-johannean character 
of the diction, for though in John we meet the collo- 
cations ὁ ϑεός and ὁ λόγος, and ὁ πατήρ and ὁ 
υἱός, We never encounter that οὗ ὁ πατήρ and ὁ 26- 
yoc; Sander, to be sure, has recourse to the 
rather easy expedient of assuming here an ἅπαξ 
λεγόμενον, but that assumption cannot be admitted 
here, because those words are of constant occur- 
rence in John—and the collocation is not acci- 
dental, but founded on the nature of the case. 
The interpolator evidently wrote λόγος because 
he thought that term to be purely Johannean, 
not reflecting however that its connection with 
matjp was un-johannean. Lastly, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ 
τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι, is also surprising. Bengel cxplains: 
Unum sunt essentia, notitia, voluntate, atque adeo 
consensu testimonii; and properly begins with the 
unity of essence, for that is indicated by said 
words—but this unity of essence is irrelevant 
here, where the reference is rather to the unity 


of the testimony.—I subjoin here also Sir Isaac 
Newton’s PARAPHRASTIC ExposiTIon: ‘* Who ts he 
that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that 
Jesus is the Son of God, that Son spoken of inthe 
Psalms, where He saith, ‘Thou art my Son, this 
day have I begotten thee.’ This is He that, after 
the Jews had long expected Him, came, first in a 
mortal body, by baptism of water, andthenin an 
immortal one by shedding His blood upon the 
cross, and rising again from the dead; not by 
water only, but by water and blood, being the Son of 
God, as well as by His supernatural birth of the 
Virgin (Luke i. 85). And tt ts the Spirit also, that 
together with the water and the blood, beareth 
witness of the truth of His coming; because the 
Spirit is truth, and soa fit and unexceptionable 
witness. or there are three that bear record of 
His coming; the Spirit, which He promised to 
send, and which was since sent forth upon us in 
the form of cloven tongues, and of various gifts; 
the baptism of water, wherein God testified, ‘this 
is my beloved Son;’ and the shedding of His 
blood, accompanied with the resurrection, where- 
by He became the most faithful martyr or wit- 
ness of the truth. And these three, the Spirit, the 
baptism, and passion of Christ, agree in witness- 
ing one and the same thing (namely, that the Son 
of God is come); and therefore their evidence 
is strong: for the Law requires but two consent- 
ing witnesses, and here we have three, and if we 
receive the witness of men, the threefold witness of 
God, which He bare of His Son, by declaring at 
His baptism ‘This ismy beloved Son,’ by raising 
Him from the dead, and by pouring out His 
Spirit upon us, zs greater ; and therefore ought to 
be more readily received.”—‘‘ This,” Sir Isaac 
Newton observes, ‘‘is the sense plain and natural, 
and the argument full and strong; but if you 
insert the testimony of the three in heaven, you 
interrupt and spoil it; for the whole design of 
the Apostle being here to prove to men by wit- 
ness the truth of Christ’s coming, I would ask 
how the testimony of the ‘three in heaven’ makes 
to this purpose? If their testimony be not given 
to men, how does it prove to them the truth of 
Christ’s coming? If it be (given), how is the 
testimony in heaven distinguished from that on 
earth? It is the same Spirit which witnesses in 
heaven and in earth. If in both cases it witnesses 
to us men, wherein lies the difference between its 
witnessing in heaven and its witnessing in earth? 
If in the first case it does not witness to them to 
whom does it witness? And to what purpose? 
And how does its witnessing make to the design 
of St. John’s discourse? Let them make good 
sense of it who are able. For my part, I can 
make none. If it besaid, that we are not to de- 
termine what is Scripture, and what not, by our 
private judgments, I confess it in places not con- 
troverted, but in disputable places, I love to take 
what I can best understand.’”’—M. ]. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Connection. That which inthe preceding verses 
had been repeatedly noticed as a proof of the 
love of God, the appearing of Jesus Christ (vv. 
9, 10, 14, 19), and as the immediate consequence 
of it, had been indicated as the exhibition of our 


158 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


life-fellowship with God,—faith, knowledge and 
confession—(vvy. 15, 16), the Apostle places with 
emphatic prominence at the end of this section 
with a primary reference to brotherly love ἣν 1), 
then with respect to the love of God and obe- 
dience to His commandment (vv. 2, 8), with ref- 
erence to the victory over the world (v. 4), viz. faith 
in Jesus the Christ (v. 1a), the Son of God (v. 5), 
who is confirmed as such by God Himself (vv. 
6-9), and in His work or gift, eternal life (vy. 
10-12). Bengel: ‘*Concinne Apostolus in hac trac- 
tationis parte mentionem amoris ita collocat ut fides 
tanquam prora et puppis totius tractationis, in extremo 
spectetur.”” 

Efficacy of faith in Christ. vv. 1-5. 

Ver. 1. Every one that believeth that 

_Jesus is Christ, is born of God.—'The only 
limitation of the universality (πᾶς) is believ- 
ing (πιστεύων) and the object of faith (ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς 
ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς); the faith may be weak and im- 
perfect, provided that it be sincere (subjective) 
and right (objective), and consequently true. 
This believing involves knowledge, inclination, 
yielding and trust and genders susceptibility for 
receiving. It is clear from v. 5 that ὁ χριστὸς 
refers to the inward nature of Him that has been 
manifested,—d υἱὸς rod ϑεοῦ, although these ideas 
are not identical and may occur in juxtaposition 
(iii. 23): the Divine Sonship makes the Man Jesus 
the Christ—Saviour. Cf. ch. iv. 15 andii. 22, The 
tenses, the Present πιστεύων and the Perfect 
“γεγέννηται denote the regeneration, the birth out 
of God as the ground, and faith, which is a Divine 
work (Eph. ii. 8), as the consequence; only a 
child of God believes in Jesus the Son of God. 

And every one that loveth Him that 
begot him, loveth also him that is begot- 
ten of Him.—Ildc¢ 6 ἀγαπῶν is a parallel of πᾶς 
ὁ πιστεύων, and gives prominence to what was 
given along with and received in faith. Hence 
there is no need of an ellipsis to be filled up, like 
that specified by Huther: ‘‘he that is born of 
God loveth God.” The objeet (γεννήσαντα) is evi- 
dently God, and hence ἐξ avrov—vVeov, and τὸν 
γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὑτοῦ denotes the believer (Υ. 2: 
Ta τέκνα τοῦ ϑεοῦ). Argumentum ex communi na- 
tur ordine sumtum (Calvin), or a propensione na- 
turali, que cernitur in hominibus (Estius). Cf. 
Eph. v. 28-380. The reference therefore is not 
to Christ as maintained by Augustine, Hilary 
and others. The Present ἀγαπᾷ by the side of 
ὁ ἀγαπῶν denotes the interconnection of brotherly 
love and the love of God [i. 6. our love of our 
brother and of God—M.], the simultaneousness 
and duration of the relation of both. The Apos- 
tle lays it down as a fact, not as something which 
he requires; he shall love. 

Ver. 2. In this we know, that we love 
the children of God, when we love God 
and keep His commandments.—lt is clear 
that the reference here is to something which 
every one may and must know from his own ex- 
perience and not from that of others, Again it 
is clear that this something is brotherly love, 
even the love to our brethren, who are τέκνα 
VYeod. Lastly it is clear that the token and sign 
of it is our love to God and our keeping His com- 
mandments. For ὅταν followed by the Indicative 
ἀγαπῶμεν (Winer, p. 325), is a conditional par- 
ticle, although it is qualified by the idea of time, 


—whensoever; there may be fluctuations, dis- 
turbances, pauses, or ebbs in our love to God; 
but when it is in us, brotherly love surely is also 
inus. Hence John annexes to ἀγαπῶμεν τὸν Vedv, 
τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν in order to designate 
the living love to God by an obedience rooted in . 
the love of God, so that brotherly love should be 
considered as one of the commandments of God, ; 
and, at the same time, as the necessary conse- 
quence of our love to God, as of the necessary 
ground. [Huther: He that loves God, has in 
this his love a testimony that he also loves his 
brethren, even as τέκνα τοῦ Yeoit—because broth- 
erly love is the necessary consequence of the love 
of God; but the converse is also true, that he 
who loves the brethren, has in this his love a 
testimony that he also loves God, because his 
love to God is the necessary ground of his love to 
the brethren. Alford: And indeed so insepara- 
ble are the two, that as before iv. 20, our love to 
our brethren was made a sign and necessary 
condition of our love to God, so conversely, our 
love to God, ascertained by our keeping His com- 
mandments, is itself the measure of our love to 
the children of God. Either of the two being 
found to be present, the presence of the other 
follows.—M.]. While John elsewhere (ch. ii. 3; 
iy. 20, 21) makes the knowledge of God and love 
to God to be ascertained from our keeping His 
commandments and loying our brethren, 7. e. the 
ground from the consequence, so he conversely 
makes us ascertain the consequence from the 
ground, which, considering the unity of the Di- 
vine life, is the less surprising, since the former 
references point to the truth and purity of our 
disposition, while here the concluding reference 
is to the consolation which we need in the dis- 
charge of an important and difficult duty. Hence 
it iswrong and unnecessary, to assume here, with 
Grotius following Oecumenius, a trajection, or to 
construe, with de Wette, the sentence τὸν ϑεὸν 
ἀγαπῶμεν as simply accompanying the sentence 
immediately following, so that obedience is to be 
considered only as emanating from the love to 
God, or still worse, to alter the text, as some of 
the ancient versions (the Ethiopie and Arabic), 
and several unimportant expositors, have dared 
todo. [Calvin also gives a wrong turn to the 
thought in the remark: ‘Nune docet, recte et or- 
dine amari homines, quum Deus priores obtinet ; vult 
sic mutuam coli inter nos caritatem, ut Deus, prae- 
Sferatur.”’—M.}]. 

Ver. 3. For this is the love of God, that 
we keep His commandments.—The con- 
nection of our ἴον to God with our keeping 
His commandments doubtless occasioned this say- 
ing, in order to take in its unity that which had 
been treated as simply codrdinate [viz. the ideas 
expressed in the two preceding clauses.—M. ]. 
Huther.—Airy—iva, as in ch. i. 9; iv. 17, de- 
notes the requirement and tendency of love; 
ἐστιν describes its nature, not—it implies, it in- 
cludes the effort (de Wette). The context (y. 2 
shows that the love of God here is our love to 
God. 

And His commandments are not griev- 
ous; this clause is added by John ‘encourag- 
ingly in the full and joyous consciousness of his 
Divine sonship,”’ (Diisterdieck). Cf. Matth. xi. 
80: φορτίον ἐλαφρόν; Luke xi. 46; φορτία δυσβάσ- 


CHAP. V. 1-12. 


159 


τακτα. The connection requires us to apply this 
only to regenerate Christians, to whom is given 
the ability to keep the commandments of God. 
So most Commentators. Cf. Doctrinal and Ethi- 
cal on this section below. [Oxford Catena: εἰ 
τις προσελθὼν αὐταῖς μὴ bv dei τρόπον λέγει αὐτὰς 
βαρείας, τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀσθένειαν ἠτιάσατο: Φίλον γὰρ 
τοῖς ἄγαν ἀποβάλλουσιν ἰσχὺν βαρέα νομίζεσθαι καὶ 
τὰ πανί; ἐλαφρὰ καὶ κοῦφα.----ϑΞβλόπου: ‘The refer- 
ence isto the difficulty of a burden so oppressive as 
to be insupportable and painful.”’"—Calov: ‘Déeit 
ea non esse gravia, quia non aggravant, aut instar 
molis onerose premunt renatum.’’—Huther: ‘‘The 
commandments of God as the requirements of 
man created after His Image, cannot be difficult 
to man; but if they are, the reason is, that man 
has left his original relation to God; they are 
not difficult to the believer, because, as the child 
of God, he has returned to the original relation 
of love to God.’’—Alford: ‘‘This declaration, 
that His commandments are not grievous, has, as 
did ch. iii. 9, furnished some of the Roman Ca- 
tholic Commentators with an opportunity of 
characterizing very severely the Protestant posi- 
tion that none can keep God’s commandments. 
But here as there the reply is obvious and easy. 
The course of the Apostle’s argument here, as in- 
troduced in the next verse by ὅτι, substantiates 
this βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν by showing that all who are 
born of God are standing in and upon the victory 
which their faith has obtained over the world. 
In this victorious state, and in as far as they have 
advanced into it, in other words in proportion as 
the Divine life is developed and dominant in 
them, do they find those commandments not 
grievous. If this state, in its ideality, were re- 
alized in them, there would be no difficulty for 
them in God’s commandments; it is because, and 
in so far as sin is still reigning in their mortal 
bodies and their wills are unsubdued to God’s 
will, that any βάρος remains in keeping those 
commandments.” The reader is also reminded 
of Augustine’s saying, ‘“‘ Da quod jubes et jube 
quod vis” (Confess. 10, 29), and referred to Au- 
sonius (ad. Theodos. 13), ‘*Juvat qui Jubet,” and 
Bp. Sanderson, Serm 3. p. 316.—M. ]. 

Ver. 4. Because all that is born of God 
overcometh the world.—Now follows (ὅτε) 
the reason why the commandments of God are 
not grievous. Hence πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημένον as in 
Jno. lil. 6, 57, 89; xvii. 2 (πᾶν---αὐτοῖς, like here 
πᾶν---ἡμῶν), denotes universality. See notes on 
ch. i. 1, Winer, p. 191, 5==wavtec of γεγεννημένοι. 
The reference is to persons, not to disposition, 
virtutes and charismata (Oecumenius, Paulus), or 
to the dignity of the Divine sonship (Baumgarten- 
Crusius) ---ΚΚόσμος is here taken collectively, as 
the opposite of the kingdom of God, as whatever 
opposes its progress, estranged from and hostile 
to God and the Divine, within and without men 
(Calvin [quicquid adversum est Dei spiritut. Ita 
nature nostre pravitas pars mundi est, omnes 
concupiscentize, omnes Satane actus, quicquid deni- 
gue nos a Deo abstrahit.—M.], Beza, Spener, 
Liicke, Diisterdieck, Huther, and al.); hence not 
merely inwardly the love of the world and of self 
“(de Wette), or outwardly homines virtute et pietate 
adversantes, their machinationes, eyen to the perse- 
cutiones (Grotius), nor merely ecclesia Judaica et 
judaismus (Schéttgen). [Alford: “The argu- 

“ΠΡ 


ment then is this: The commandments of God 
are not grievous: for, although in keeping them 
there is ever a conflict, yet that conflict issues in 
universal victory: the whole mass of the born of 
God conquer the world: therefore none of us 
need contemplate failure, or faint under his 
struggle as a hard one.”—M.].—The Present 
νικᾷ denotes the constant victory in the conflict 
to be endured; “the children of God fight with 
the world only as conquerors” (Diisterdieck), ef. 
ch. ii. 13, 14; iv. 4. But νικᾷν must not be diluted 
into “keeping oneself, unseduced”’ (Baumgarten- 
Crusius). 

And this is the victory which hath over- 
come the world: our faith.—Airy νίκη refers 
to πίστις, ἡμῶν is not explained here but in the 
next verse. Νίκη, being further qualified by 
νικήσασα, does not denote the action which con- 
quers the world (Ebrard), but victoria paria, the 
fact of the victory, the faith, not the cause of, but 
the participation in the victory and the reception 
of the power of continuing, maintaining and con- 
summating the victory. Lorinus: “ Victoria 
proprie non vincit, sed comparatur vincendo, sed ener- 
giam continet ea formula, denotans in quo sita sit 
vincendi ratio, unde victoria parta.”  Huther: 
«Faith is here intended to be extolled not as the 
result of a conflict, but as the combatant who has 
gained the victory.” Hence faith itself is not 
yet the victory (Baumgarten-Crusius, Neander), 
nor must the Aorist be explained to former, 
departed Christians (Socinus). Cf. ch. ii. 13, 14, 
23; iv. 4; v. 12. 

Vex. 5. But who is it that overcometh 
the world, if not he that believeth that 
Jesus is the Son of God.—While vy. 4 brought 
in ἡμῶν πίστις, this verse gives emphatic promi- 
nence to the contents of the faith qualified by 
ἡμῶν in a triumphant question well suited to this 
section of the victory over the world. Bengel: 
Credens omnis et solus vincit. Episcopius: Lustrate 
universum mundum et ostendite mihi vel unum, de quo 
vere affirmari possit, quod mundum vincat, qui christi- 
anus et fide hac preditus non sit. The Apostle, in. 
this question, appeals to the experience of his 
Church. The Present ὁ νικῶν, which, with respect 
to the fact: ἡ νίκη νικήσασα (v. 4), denotes the 
person conquering in the conflict, indicates the. 
existing and present attitude and relation of the 
believer. But by the variation: 6r:—6 vide τοῦ 
Geov instead of ὁ χριστός v. 1, the Apostle refers 
to the essential glory of Jesus, and also to the 
fact that believers, as partakers of His glory and 
as the children of God, of course conquer with 
Him and participate in His victory. The be- 
liever, who is Christ’s and whose is Christ the 
Son of God, is a conqueror in his character of 
being a child of God. If only faith is true, and 
the believer born again, born of God, which may 
be ascertained from loye to the brethren and love 
to God and a hearty obedience to the command- 
ments of God,—the victory over the world also is 
indubitable. And with this the Apostle is here 
particularly concerned. 

Jesus is really confirmed as the Son of God. 
6-9. 

Ver. 6. Thisis He that came by water and 
blood, Jesus Christ.—Oiroc refers to the Per- 
son Jesus, whose dignity is proved and confirmed. 
Ὁ ἐλθών must be taken substantively as at ch. i 


ΥΥ. 


160 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


5; Jno. i. 15, 33; iii. 13, 31; the Article requires 
this and forbids the connection of the Participle 
with the preceding ἐστίν, as if it were=this one 
came; for we read not ἐστιν ἐλθὼν, but ἐστιν ὁ 
ἐλθών. But we must here hold fast the usual 
form of the Partic. Aoristi, which simply narrates 
that which has happened, and does not denote 
present events or past events continuing in the 
present; this would require ἐρχόμενος or ἐληλυ- 
θώς (ch. iv. 2). How He came is stated in the 
words δύ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, viz. by means of, by 
water and blood; διὰ denotes the medium; im- 
mediately afterwards we have ἐν ὕδατι, which 
indicates surrounding or accompaniment. There 
must therefore be facts,and facts at once histori- 
cal and external, by which He came, and which 
are important and efficacious to demonstrate 
Him, who He is. Moreover the connection of 
the two requires us to understand acts equal in 
kind and relation. Hence we must explain d/ 
ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος of the baptism, which He re- 
ceived of John in Jordan and which by its im- 
mersion pointed to death, while the voice of the 
Father uttered over Him pointed out His filial 
dignity, and of His death upon the cross with its 
atoning sacrificial virtue; in both facts He proved 
His obedience to the will of the Father, while His 
obedience proved Him to be the Son of God, the 
Holy and Innocent One.—Now the apposition 
᾿Ιησοῦς--εοὗτος, χριστὸς-ετὸ ελθών bl ὕδατος καὶ αἵμα- 
τος, comprises what is here said into one whole as 
the result. A similar turn may be seen in Rom. i. 8, 
4. Consequently we must not, contrary to thegram- 
mar and the dialectics of the text, refer οὗτος to 
the Predicate ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ v. 5 (with Knapp, 
Huther Ist ed.), but to the Subject (Liicke), or 
to the Subject qualified by the Predicate (Huther 
2d ed.); we must and cannot explain contrary to 
grammatical usage (Matth. xi. 3; Luke vii. 19 
sq.; Jno. xi. 27), ὁ ἐλθών of the Messiah, like ὁ 
ἐρχόμενος, and connect éorw with δέ ὕδατος καὶ 
αἵματος (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis ii. 1, p. 469), or 
take ἐστιν ἐλθὼν as a circumlocution of the verbum 
jinitum the Article notwithstanding, and thus 
overlooking the force of the Aorist, explain it as 
a Present: He comes (Luther and al.), or asa 
Perfect: He has come and comes (de Wette, San- 
der and al.). There is no reference here to the 
water and blood which flowed from His side 
pierced on the cross (Jno. xix. 34, Augustine and 
al.), because the passage in John has αἷμα before 
ὕδωρ, and because that does not constitute a 
phase of His life, but is something which, after 
death had set in, took place in His body, so that 
concerning it we cannot predicate ὁ ἐλθὼν διά. 
The symbolical reference of this passage to the 
two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, 
is inadmissible (Luther I, 8. Schmid, Bengel, 
Sander, Besser and al.), since the term ἐληλυθὼς 
is not used here, and αἷμα is not used to describe 
the Lord’s Supper; but since the two ideas are 
parallel, ὕδωρ cannot be referred to the Sacra- 
ment of Baptism (ὕδωρ moreover cannot be made 
to designate Baptism Jno. i. 26, 33), as instituted 
by Christ, nor αἷμα to the death He suffered (de 
Wette, Rickli, Diisterdieck, Ebrard and al.), nor 
both together to Baptism only (Luther 1), since 
Baptism was administered into the death of 
Christ; the double reference is, by all means, to 
be held fast. It is either historically or gram- 


matically unwarranted to explain ὕδωρ of vita 
purissima (Grotius), doctrina pura (Socinus), re- 
generatio et fides (Clemens Alex.), of tears, and 
αἷμα of the blood shed at the circumcision, expi- 
atio (Cameron), redemptio (Bullinger), cognitio 
(Clemens Alex.). Compare particularly Huther 
on this passage. [Huther, who has changed his 
view expressed in the first ed. of his commentary, 
says in the 2d ed. p. 221. ‘‘There are two points 
in the life of Jesus which answer to the terms 
ὕδωρ and αἷμα, to wit, His Baptism at the beginning 
of His Messianie career, and His bloody death at 
the end of the same; by Baptism Jesus entered 
upon His office, which is the office of reconcilia- 
tion; it constitutes the initiatio (Erdmann, Myr- 
berg) of it; this initiation, however, did not take 
place only by that which occurred during His 
Baptism, but by the act of the Baptism itself, 
since thereby Christ consecrated Himself to 
death, which was symbolized by the act of im- 
mersion; by His death He effected reconciliation’ 
in cancelling with His Blood the debt of the world 
of sinners, for χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφε- 
σις (Heb. ix. 22). The Apostle therefore rightly 
designates Christ as the Reconciler, as Him that 
came δ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος. The view that ὕδωρ 
and αἷμα are to be explained of the Sacraments 
instituted by Christ is confuted not only by the 
circumstance that they are only the means of ap- 
propriating the reconciliation effected by Him, 
whereas we are here concerned with the accom- 
plishment of the reconciliation itself, but also by the 
use of the Aorist ἐλθών, instead of which in the 
former case we ought to have the Present, and 
by the fact that the term aiua, used alone, is in 
the New Testament not once applied to the Lord’s 
Supper; in 1 Cor. xii. 18 also ἐποτίσϑησαν does 
not allude to the Lord’s Supper, but to the com- 
munication of the Spirit in Baptism.—The opinion 
that though αἷμα denotes the death which Christ 
suffered, ὕδωρ does not signify the Baptism He 
received is opposed by the following considera- 
tions: 1. The close connection of the two words 
(διά not being repeated before αἵματος) is only 
fitting if the ideas correspond the one to the 
other, which they do not if δ ὕδατος is referred 
to an institution of Christ, and αἵματος to the 
blood shed by Christ. 2. The simple term 
ὕδωρ is ill-suited to designate Christian baptism 
(for Christian Baptism is distinguished from 
John’s Baptism in that the former is essentially 
not ὕδωρ like the latter; even as John the Baptist 
distinguishing himself from Christ said: ἐγὼ 
βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι Jno. i. 26, while Jesus had 
been indicated to him as ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν 
πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, Jno. i, 38. 8. Since the 
institution of Baptism took place after the death 
of Christ and necessarily presupposed that death, 
John, had he understood by ὕδωρ Christian Bap- 
tism, would surely have put ὕδατος not before but 
after αἵματος. Hilgenfeld and Neander have justly 
maintained that if ἔρχεσθαι δ αἵματος denotes 
something relating to the Messiah personally, 
ἔρχεσθαι dt ὕδατος must do so likewise. The rela- 
tion must be the same in both terms. If αἷμα 
signifies the death to which Christ submitted, 
ὕδωρ also can only signify the Baptism to which 
He in like manner submitted.”-—Passing to that 
class of commentators who substantially admit 
the views expressed by Huther, but superadd a 


CHAP. V. 1-12. 


161° 


secondary or implied sacramental reference, we 
give the language of Alford who says that “ὕδωρ 
represents the Baptism of water which the Lord 
Himself underwent and instituted for His fol- 
lowers, αἷμα, the Baptism of blood which He 
Himself underwent and instituted for His fol- 
lowers. It is equally impossible to sever . . 
from these words the historical accompaniments 
and associations which arise on their mention. 
The Lord’s Baptism, of itself, was indeed rather 
a result than a proof of His Messiahship: but in 
it, taking St. John’s account only, a testimony to 
His Divine Sonship is given, by which the Bap- 
tist knew Him to be the Son of God: ἐγὼ ἐώρακα 
kK. μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ, are 
his words, Jno. i. 84; and when that blood was 
poured from His ‘‘riven side,’’ he that saw it 
again uses the same formula ὁ ἑωρακὼς μεμαρ- 
τύρηκε. It cannot be that the word μαρτυρία 
being thus referred to two definite points of our 
Lord’s life, should not apply to these two, con- 
nected as they are with ὕδωρ and αἷμα here men- 
tioned, and associated by St. John Himself with 
the remarkable preterite μεμαρτύρηκεν, of an 
abiding μαρτυρία in both cases. But these past 
facts in the Lord’s life are this abiding testimony 
to us, by virtue of the permanent application to 
us of their cleansing and atoning power.’— 
Wordsworth, as usual, adopts the Patristic and 
symbolical interpretation, and as the views of 
other classes of commentators have been given at 
considerable length, we add as a curiosum his 
exposition of this passage in a condensed form. 
« Jesus Christ came, as the Messiah and Son of 
God, in various ways. 

1. ‘He came in all the purifications that were 
made by water and blood under the Old Law, 
which was dedicated with blood and water. Heb. 
ix. 22; because all those purifications were typical 
of, and preparatory to, His sacrifice on the Cross, 
and derived all their efficacy from it. 

2. ‘He came by water in His Baptism; and by 
blood in His circumcision, and especially in His 
agony and bloody sweat in Gethsemane, and by 
the blood shed in His scourging before His pas- 
sion, and in the crown of thorns, and the piercing 
of His hands at the crucifixion. .... 

8. ‘He came both by water and blood at once, in 
a speciql manner, on Calvary after His death. ... 

‘Thus St. John in his Gospel prepares us to un- 
derstand the words of this Epistle; and in his 
Epistle also he elucidates what had been recorded 
in his Gospel. His words therefore may be thus 
paraphrased: ‘This is He who came—that is, 
proved Himself to be what He was pre-announced 
to be by the types and prophecies of the Old Tes- 
tament, and what He proclaimed Himself to be in 
the New—the ‘Coming One,” ‘The Comer”? 
(ὁ ἐρχόμενος), the Messiah, the true Paschal Lamb, 
and Very Man, a true Sacrifice for Sin; and yet 
Very God, the Everlasting Jehovah, of whom the 
prophet Zechariah spoke (Zech. xii. 10), when he 
prophesied of His being pierced at His death. 

‘He came by blood and water. He proved 
thereby the reality of His humanity and of His 
death; and thus He has given a practical refuta- 
tion—which St. John saw with his own eyes—to 
the heretical notions of those in the Apostolical 
age, such as Simon Magus and the Docetae, who 
alleged that Christ had not a real human body, 


δ vid) wr Aien tay ὦ 


but was merely a spectral phantasm, crucified in 
show; and therefore Irenzeus in the next age af- 
ter St. John, infers this fact of the piercing of 
the side and the flowing out of the blood and wa- 
ter, recorded by St. John, as conclusive against 
their heresy. ... 

‘In the words, ‘‘not by water only,’ there 
seems also to be a reference to another heresy of 
the Apostolic age, that of Cerinthus, who said 
that Christ came in the water of baptism, and de- 
scended into the Man Jesus; and afterwards de- 
parted from Him, when He shed His blood on the 
cross. In opposition to this notion St. John says, 
«This is He who came by water and blood; not 
by water only, but by water and blood.” 

4. ‘Further it is to be observed that in this 
passage of his Epistle St. John is speaking of 
Christ’s generation, and of our regeneration.— 
Every one who believeth that Jesus is the Christ, 
hath been born, and is born, of God; 7. e., is regene- 
rate; and every one who loveth Him that begat, 
loveth Him also that is begotten of Him; i. e., who- 
soever loveth God the Father, loveth Him who by 
generation is the only-begotten Son of God; and 
every thing that is born of God (7. e., is regenerate) 
overcometh the world; and who is he that over- 
cometh the world, but he that believeth that Je- 
sus—the Very Man Jesus—is also the Son of 
God? 

‘St. John then proceeds to describe the means 
by which our regeneration, or New Birth, is com- 
municated to us from God, through His Son Christ 
Jesus, Very Man and Very God, and how the new 
life, so communicated, is sustained in us. He 
does this by saying, This is He who came--came 
to us—by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by 
water only, but by water and blood. 

‘The natural life which was imparted to Eyve— 
the Mother of all living, the type of the Church, 
the Spouse of the Second Adam, Jesus Christ— 
was derived from the first Adam’s side, opened 
when he was asleep in Paradise. In like manner, 
the spiritual life is given to the spiritual Hve, the 
Church, and to all her faithful members, from the 
side of the second Adam, Jesus Christ, sleeping 
in death on the cross; and it is communicated 
through His death by means of the water and 
blood of the two sacraments, which derive their 
quickening, cleansing and invigorating virtue 
from the Divinity, Incarnation and Death of our 
crucified Lord and Saviour, and by which the ben- 
efit of that death is applied to our regeneration 
and revivification; and which were visibly exhib- 
ited in the water and blood flowing from Mis 
precious side, pierced on the cross. [See 
Augustine, Serm. V.—M. ]. 

‘He came by water, which is our λουτρὸν, and 
by blood, which is our λύτρον. His Baptism of 
blood is our λύτρον, or ransom from death; and 
His Baptism by water is our λουτρὸν, or laver of 
birth. And the water of the λουτρὸν derives its 
efficacy from the dlood of the λυτρόν, shed on the 
cross, which works in and by the water of bap- 
tism. He has washed us from our sins in His 
own blood (Rev. i. 15). His blood cleanseth us 
from all sin (1 Jno. i. 7). In baptism we pass 
through the Red Sea of His blood, and are deli- 
vered from our enemies thereby.”—For further 
particulars connected with the symbolical inter- 
pretation, the reader is referred to Wordsworth , 


᾽ 


162 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


himself, and for a good account of all the inter- 
pretations, to Huther’s Commentary, 2d edition, 
pp. 217-219.—M. ]. 

Not in the water only, but in the water 
and in the blood.—The preposition év should 
be connected with ἐλθὼν, and, as compared with 
διὰ, signifying the medium through which, intro- 
duces anew shade of thought, viz., the surround- 
ing, accompaniment and sphere [or ‘‘ element in 
which”—M.]; a similar change occurs at Heb. 
ix. 12, 25 (Delitzsch, pp. 390, 484). Articulus 
habet vim relativam (Bengel) to what has just been 
specified, which must be taken in the same sense 
as before. Μόνον after ὕδατι renders the latter 
very emphatic, and is not followed by ἀλλὰ καὶ 
because it is not connected with ov. Consequently 
not only in the Baptism received at the hands of 
John the Baptist has Jesus been proved to be the 
Christ, the Son of God, but in both. This refutes 
the opinion of those heretics who alleged that the 
Son of God was with Jesus at His Baptism, but 
not at His death upon the cross, that He left Him 
before His death (Huther [7. ¢., the heresy of 
Cerinthus.—M.]). The distinction of Jesus from 
the Baptist, who baptized with water only, is out 
of the question, the reference being not to Jesus’ 
baptizing, but to His being baptized (against 
Liicke, Diisterdieck, Ebrard and others). 

And it is the Spirit that testifieth.—Kai 
superadds a further and third particular, an ad- 
ditional witness (ἐστίν τὸ μαρτυροῦν cf. ὁ ἐλθὼν). 
The Article before the Participle compels us to 
understand τὸ πνεῦμα as the absolute, objective 
Spirit, as the Holy Spirit, and the Present de- 
notes the continuance of the office of witnessing 
(Jno. xv, 26) wherein He leads into all truth, 
mediates fellowship with Christ, and secures 
eternal life. Τὸ πνεῦμα must not be explained of 
the spirit of believers, of the spiritual life 
wrought in believers by the Holy Spirit (Episco- 
pius, Sander and others); this is forbidden by 
the context, and the grammatical usage of the 
New Testament disallows such a construction 
without any further qualification Nor is it=d 
πνευματικός, t. 6., the Apostle John himself (Zieg- 
ler, Stroth), nor athird sacrament of absolution(Au- 
gustine), nor the word, the ministry of the word 
(Luther, Piscator, al.). [In order to complete the 
catalogue of curious and fantastic views begun in 
the text, we mention those of Oecumenius and 
Knapp, who regard τὸ πνευμᾶ-εεὸ ϑεός---διὰ δὲ τοῦ 
πνεύματος, ὅτε ὡς θεὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν" θεοῦ γὰρ τοῦτο 
μόνου λοιπόν, τὸ ἀνιστᾷν ἑαυτόν. τῇ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος 
φωνῇ σημαίνεται ὁ ϑεος : thus making the threefold 
witness to the υἱοθεσία of Jesus, τὸ βάπτισμα, ὁ σταυ- 
pc, ἡ ἀνάστασις ; of Socinus, Schlichting, Grotius, 
Whitby and al. who understand the Divine power 
by which Christ wrought His miracles: ‘dd est,’ 
says Grotius, ‘per μετωνυμίαν, admiranda ejus opera, 
a virtute divina manifeste procedentia,’ of Bede, who 
understands the Spirit which descended on the 
Lord at His Baptism, and of Wetstein, who con- 
siders τὸ πνεῦμα to signify the psychical element 
which, along with ὕδωρ and αἷμα the physical ele- 
ments, constituted the human nature of Christ.— 
The interpretation given by Braune is that of 
Scholiast I., Estius, Corn. a-Lapide, Tirinus, Cal- 
vin, Calov, Liicke, Rickli, de Wette, Huther, Nean- 
der, Diisterdieck, Alford and Wordsworth. It is 
the Holy Spirit, whom Christ in fulfilment of His 


promise, sent to His Church on the Day of Pente- 
cost, and who is a permanent witness of the 
Divine Sonship of Jesus.—M. ]. 

Because the Spirit is the truth.—This 
clause does not contain the substance of the tes- 
timony, which is determined by the context (viz., 
that Jesus, the Son of God, is the Christ), but 
the reason of the testimony, as being a reliable 
one; ὅτε is—because, not—that (Luther, Besser, 
al.). Ἢ ἀλήθεια designates the Truth revealed in 
the word of God, and received in faith, in its 
perfect fulness, which Truth is the nature of the 
Spirit who is the Spirit of the Truth into which 
He leadeth (Jno. xiv. 17; xv. 26; xvi. 18). 
Christ, who has the Spirit without measure (Jno. 
111. 94 sq.), and who with the Father sends Him 
(Jno. xv. 26; xvi. 7), is of course in the same 
sense the Truth according to His nature (Jno. 
iv. 6). We must not construe ἡ ἀλἠθειαΞε-ἀληθές, 
as Grotius does. [Kstius: ‘Testimonium ejus 
haudquaquam rejici potest, quoniam Spiritus est ver- 
itas, quam sit Deus, ideoque nec falli potest, nec fal- 
lere.”’—M. ]. fi 

Vv. 7, 8. For three are the witnesses, 
Spirit, water and blood.—[Grotius: ‘Johan- 
nes hic causam reddit, cur locutus fuerit non de Spir- 
itu tantum, cujus precipua in hoe negotio est aucto+ 
ritas, verum etiam de aqua et sanguine, quia in illis 
etiam non exigua est testimonii fides, et ternarius 
numerus in testibus est perfectissimus.”—M.]. This 
formula is precisely like that of the preceding 
verse (v. 6). Οἱ μαρτυροῦντες of course must be 
construed substantively and in the same sense as 
γ. 6, nor must be supplied another object of the 
testimony; in like manner τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ 
καὶ τὸ αἷμα bear exactly the same meaning here 
as inv. 6. The historical facts, previously spe- 
cified merely as evidencing the Divine Sonship 
of Jesus, are now introduced in the Masculine 
Gender, in order to designate them as concrete 
witnesses, like persons (Liicke and al.); but of 
course so, that they are subordinated to the 
Spirit, who is the principal, and alone absolute 
Witness, employing and making use of the facts 
in the life of Jesus. The verb denotes the activ- 
ity of the testifying, with reference to the condi- 
tion of being μάρτυρ, and the Present signifies 
the permanent character of that activity, where- 
fore it is not necessary to think here of objects 
at present existing, e. g., the sacraments, but we 
have only to hold fast that these facts in the his- 
tory of the life of Jesus, like that history itself, 
are fixed in the Gospels, and that these facts, 
even without such written fixedness, continue to 
be permanently operative during the years of sal- 
vation [7. 6., the dispensation of grace..—M. ] with 
world-historical import [7. 6., exerting a perma- 
nent influence on the world’s history during the 
dispensation of grace. —M.].—Tpeic, with refer- 
ence to Deut. xvii. 6; xix. 15; Matth. xviii. 16; 2 
Cor. xiii. 1; Heb. x. 28, 29, denotes the assurance 
of the perfectness of the testimony. This sen- 
tence is annexed with 67-——for, in order to rep- 
resent now in a compressed form the testimony, 
particularized in y. 6, as a weighty confirmation 
and substantiation of the truth, that Jesus, the 
Son of God, is the Christ. 

And the three are one.—The Article οἱ 
τρεῖς denotes here, as also previously, the wit- 
nesses already designated and well known, and 


CHAP. V. 1-12. 


165 


---------ς-ςςςςςς-ς--Ὃ-ςς---ς----------ς-α------Ξ-ς-ςς-ς--- 


likewise in εἰς τὸ ἕν the one Truth in question, 
the object of the testimony (ch. v. 1,5). Εἰς, 
like εἰς ἔν in Jno. xi. 52; xvii. 28, denotes 
in unum consentire—Hence we need neither as- 
sume with de Wette, an ellipsis between vv. 6 
and 7, 8, nor take ὅτε in the sense of jam vero 
(Grotius), consequently, therefore (Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Meyer), nor understand τρεῖς οἱ μαρτυ- 
povvrec, with Bengel, of three different classes of 
men (prophetas, baptistas, apostolos), or of symbols 
of the Trinity. Lastly we must not interpret the 
being one, with Luther, as a being together, a 
being joined together. [Alford renders ‘and the 
three concur in one” and explains, that they con- 
tribute to one and the same result: viz., the 
truth that Jesus is the Christ, and that we have 
life in Him. Wordsworth explains the passage 
of the Trinity and the sacraments and para- 
phrases: these three (Persons) who are bearing 
witness are joined into one (ἕν one substance, neu- 
ter). He collects, as usual, many Patristic and 
Anglican notices and gives in his exegesis the 
following :—‘The Spirit, who begins the work of 
regeneration by applying all quickening grace to 
man.—The Water: the symbol and instrument 
of the new birth derived from God the Father, 
who is the original Wedl-spring and Fountain of 
all life and grace to man. The natural heavens 
and the earth were formed out of the Water. 
There was their origin (2 Pet. iii. 5). So it is 
with the spiritual life; it is formed from out of 
water. Water therefore is a proper symbol of 
the Paternity of God.—The Blood, symbolizing 
the Incarnation and Passion of God, the Son through 
whom all grace descends from the Father, by the 
Holy Spirit. 2 Cor. xiii. 18.—These three Per- 
sons are joined consubstantially into one Godhead; 
and their Witness is the witness of God. (An- 
drews: ‘‘ Water notes Creation; Blood notes Re- 
demption by Christ; the Spirit notes Unction, to 
complete all”).—There is an image of the Trinity 
in the Christian sacraments. There is baptismus 
FLUMINIS, the baptism of water, the work of Crea- 
tion by the Father; there is baptismus SANGUINIS, 
the baptism of blood, the work of Redemption by 
the Son; but these are not enough, unless there be 
also the baptismus FLAMINIs, the Baptism of the 
Spirit. Thus the work of the Ever-Blessed 
Trinity is done in the soul.’ In addition to the 
notes on the spurious passage given above, the 
reader is referred to a sketch on this subject in 
Horne’s Introduction, vol. IV. pp. 355—-388.—M]. 
Ver. 9. If we receive the testimony of 
men.—Ei denotes an undoubted fact; hence the 
Indicative, but the fact is put down as the pre- 
mise of a conclusion. [It is an argumentum a mi- 
nort ad majus.—M.]. Winer p. 307 sq. [also ἐδία, 
p- 642.—M.]. In τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 
the Article opposes the human testimony to the 
Divine, without in any way specifying one qual- 
ified by its substance (Briickner). The reference 
therefore is neither to the prophecy of Christ 
(Bede), nor to John the Baptist, to eye-and ear- 
witnesses (Wetstein, Stier), nor to prophets, 
baptists and Apostles (Bengel). Grotius takes 
AauBavervjudicio approbare, and Diisterdieck un- 
derstands any human testimony, provided that it 
possess the necessary requirements. 
: The testimony of God is greater.—Here 
ἡμαρτυρία τοῦ ϑεοῦ is not particular, but quite 


general [The particular is specified in the sequel. 
Supply in the argument: much more must we re- 
ceive the testimony of God (Winer).—M.]. As 
the testimony of God it is greater than that of 
men and requires so much the more its reception 
and validity. 

Because this is the testimony of God. 
Now follows the definite testimony of God, which 
must be received as the testimony of God. Here 
is evidently an ellipsis, viz.: but a Divine testi- 
mony is really extant, namely this... . (Diis- 
terdieck). 

That He hath testified of His Son.—The 
clause beginning with ὅτε depends on αὕτη, and 
notes the testimony as a historical fact, μεμαρτύ- 
pyke, which has been given, but must be under- 
stood to be continuous and permanent in its 
operation, namely the threefold testimony speci- 
fied in vy. 7, 8. Hence ὅτε cannot be rendered 
“because,” which would especially designate the 
author of the testimony, in which ease αὐτὸς 
could hardly be wanting before μεμαρτύρηκε; nor 
is here any reference to internal testimony (Diis- 
terdieck) introduced afterwards, and still less to 
the testimony vouchsafed to John the Baptist 
(Jno. i. 33), as maintained by Ebrard. 


The possession of eternal life in the faith on Jesus 
the Son of God, is the inward confirmation of the 
Divine testimony vv. 10-12. 


Ver. 10. He that believeth in the Son 
of God, hath the testimony in himself. 
—The result as well as the purport of the Divine 
testimony is faith in Jesus as the Son of God; 
hence we now have ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ. 
Such an one ἔχει τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐν gavtd. The 
addition τοῦ ϑεοῦ is unnecessary; the context 
precludes any other testimony than that of God; 
the Article designates that which has been speci- 
fied and is known. ‘The outward has become 
to him something inward” (Huther). [‘‘The ob- 
ject of the Divine testimony being, to produce 
faith in Christ, the Apostle takes him in whom it 
has wrought this its effect, one who habitually 
believes in the Son of God, and says of such an 
one, that he possesses the testimony in himself. 
What it is, he does not plainly say till below, y. 
11. But easily enough here we can syntheti- 
cally put together and conjecture of what testi 
mony it is that he is speaking: the Spirit by 
whom we are born again to eternal Life, the 
water of baptism by which the new birth is 
brought to pass in us by the power of the Holy 
Ghost (Jno, 111. 5; Tit. iii. 5), the Blood of Jesus, 
by which we have reconciliation with God, and 
purification from our sins (ch. i. 7; ii. 2), and 
eternal life (Jno. vi. 53 sqq.),—these three all 
contribute to and make up our faith in Christ, 
and so compose that testimony, which the Apos- 
tle designates in y. 11 by the shorter term 
which comprehends them all.” Alford following 
Diisterdieck.—M. ].—’Eyew bears the same sense 
here as in. v.12; ch. iii. 8; ii. 28. Ἔν ἑαυτῷ 
might be wanting, but John specifies besides the 
having, the possession of the sphere, the believer’s 
own inward testimony for it. It is wrong to 
render, to have with him (Luther), more wrong, 
recipit in se (Grotius), nor is it—=rypei (Baumgar- 
ten-Crusius), nor=he not only receives it, but is 
also firmly convinced of it (Liicke), nor=he has 


164 


received it in and with himself (de Wette).—As 
usual, the Apostle continues in the negative. 

He that believeth not God, hath made 
Him a liar.—The Dative refers not to the object 
of faith, but to the witness; hence the reading 
τῷ υἱῷ is not in agreement with the text, as is 
τῷ θεῷ τῷ μεμαρτυρηκότι (Huther); this is con- 
firmed by αὐτὸν, which must be referred to God, 
but would have to be connected with υἱῷ, if that 
were thereading. The Perfect πεποίηκεν indicates 
the still continuing and operating animus of the 
disbeliever: he has told and ever tells God to the 
face: thou liest (Luther). The reason follows: 

Because he hath not believed in the 
testimony, which God hath given con- 
cerning His Son.—0v πεπίστευκεν and not μὴ, 
because John refers to him, whom he had sup- 
posed not to believe (ὁ μὴ πιστεύων), as a definite 
individual, who in point of fact, objectively, has 
not become believing. Jno. iil. 18: ὁ δὲ μὴ πισ- 
τεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν, because there 
the reference is to the judgment of the judge, 
and not simply to a fact per se. See Winer, p. 
495 sq. The Perfects denote continuing and per- 
manent facts. 

Ver. 11. And the testimony is this, that 
God hath given us [better gave us—M. ] eter- 
nal life.—John now annexes by καὶ what fol- 
lows, and this is the substance, the testimony 
consists in this (αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία); the refer- 
ence is not to intentio, finis of the same (Lyra), 
nor to its use, fruit and blessing (Calov, Spener), 
nor to its exhibition, test, experience (Liicke, 
Neander, Huther). The testimony of God is in 
himself eternal life, which at the Baptism of 
Jesus, at His death, in the Holy Spirit, makes 
itself felt and perceptible, and testifies for the 
Son of God. Hence 67:—that, and ἔδωκεν, like 
μεμαρτύρηκεν points to a giving, with a present 
continuing of that past giving; it cannot be 
dare decrevit, promisit (Socinus, Carpzov), any 
more than ζωὴ αἰώνιος is vita xlerna in spe (Bede), 
to be given only in heaven in re. Ἡμῖν designates 
the οἱ πεπιστευκότες. To the principal idea, ζωὴ 
αἰώνιος, placed first, the Apostle now adds 

And that is the life in His Son, (or: and 
this lifeis in His Son). —This clause is co-ordinate 
with the one preceding and not dependent on ὅτι. 
Αὐ τη ἡ ζωὴ is ἡ αἰώνιος, and this is in Jesus the 
Son of God; év is not per (Grotius), or in com- 
munion with Him, nor éorc=contingit. The 
eternal life is οὐσιωδῶς (Jno. i. 4; xi. 25; xiv. 6), 
σωματικῶς (Col. il. 9), ἐνεργητικῶς (2 Tim. 1..-10) 
in Christ. It became manifest in Him, because 
it really was in Him, and the believer partici- 
pates in the eternal life, because he has part in 
the Son of God. Hence the conclusion. 

Ver. 12, He that hath the Son hath the 
life; he that hath not the Son of God, 
hath not the life (or: the life he hath not).— 
Very fine and pointed is Bengel’s note: ‘ Habet 
versus duo cola; in priore noo additur Dei, nam 
fideles norunt /ilium; in altero additur, utdemum 
sciant infideles, quanti sit, non habere. Priore 
hemistichio cum emphasi pronunciandum est 
habet; in altero vitam.”’ This is also indicated 
by the arrangement of the words (Diisterdieck). 
Ἔχει τὴν ζωὴν is not—habet jus certum ad vitam 
wternam (Grotius). Cf.i. 3: ii, 23; Jno. xvii. 8. 
[Alford: “Zhe having the Son is the possession 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


of Christ by faith testified by the Spirit, the 
water and the blood: and the having the life is 
the actually possessing it, not indeed in its most 
glorious development, but in all its reality and 
vitality.”—M.]. Ὁ μὴ ἔχων points to a supposi- 
tion: if one has not; which implies that he 
might have, but only through faith vy. 10, 11. 
[Diisterdieck has remarked that the use of ὁ μὴ 
ἔχων, not ὁ οὐκ ἔχων (cf. οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, 1 Pet. ii. 
10) shows that the Apostle is contemplating, at 
all events primarily, rather a possible contingency 
than an actual fact: and thus is, primarily again, 
confirming his saying to those to whom the 
Divine testimony has come. To them, according 
as they receive or do not receive it, according as 
they are οἱ ἔχοντες or οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ, it is a savour of life unto life, or of death 
unto death.””—M. ]. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


I, ConcERNING THE PERSON oF CHRIST. 

1. In Christ, as the Son of God is the life 
eternal, so that it is as well said: God has given 
us the eternal life (v. 11), as: He gave His only 
begotten Son (Jno. iii. 16); and he that hath the 
Son, hath the life, the eternal (v. 11). Beside 
Him there is no salvation (Acts iv. 12). 

2. The essential nature of the Son was unmis- 
takably exhibited in His obedience to the will of 
the Father, both at the commencement of His 
ministry by the baptism in Jordan, and at the 
close of it in His death upon the cross (v. 6). 

3. The testimony of the Holy Spirit for the 
Divine Sonship of Christ must not be separated 
from the historical facts of His life, even as these 
cannot become witnesses without the Holy Spirit, 
who has the office of testifying (vv. 6-8); the 
history on earth must not be severed from the 
Spirit of God. One might almost find here the 
principle of the Lutheran Church that the jinitwm 
may become infiniti capaz, in opposition to the 
[German] Reformed principle: finitum infiniti non 
capac. 

4. The Father hath so definitely appointed all 
things, that He who does not believe in the Di- 
yine Sonship of Jesus, refuses to believe God (vy. 
10), as in Jno. xiv. 1. 

Il. CoNCERNING THE ACQUISITION OF SALVA- 
TION. 

1. The origin of faith: Regeneratio precedit fi- 
dem (v. 1). 

2. The nature of faith: it is essentially an ethical 
act laying hold of the merit of Christ, of the love of 
the Father in the Son, so that it has (ἔχει) that on 
which it believes (vv. 12, 10, 11): it includes 
therefore love, and is not to be joined only to it, 
as set forth in the Roman Catholic representation 
of the fides formata. Nor does John allow faith to 
be described as the second condition, nor even as 
the first condition by the side of love and morali- 
ty (v. 1), as de Wette holds and expresses it. 

3. The virtues of faith: a. with reference to 
men—it makes all believers brethren, because it 
makes them the children of God (v. 2); ὁ. with 
reference to the commandments of God—it makes 
us strong and cheerful in obedience (v. 3), so 
that Bengel rightly observes: in se sunt suavia; 
sed τὸ non gravia contradicit et occurrit is, qui gra- 
via esse putant; c. with reference to the world— 


CHAP. 


Υ. 1-12. 165 


I ag le er 


it imparts courage for the conflict and power for 
the victory (vv. 4, 5). This it works with refer- 
ence to men, at the same time changing them, 
transforming children of men into children of 
God, and causing such change to be perceived 
and received; with reference to the law of God 
and the world, it only changes believers by first 
giving to them the powers of the eternal life, and 
afterwards clear perception and a deeper under- 
standing of the justice and blessing of the law 
and the transitoriness of the world. 

4. The necessity of faith: without it one has 
neither Christ, nor God the Father, nor the Holy 
Spirit, nor the eternal life; consequently, with- 
out it and beside it there is no justification, no 
forgiveness of sins, no sanctification, no salva- 
tion (v. 12). 

δ. Uhe liberty of faith: all men are to believe 
according to the will of God, but coércion of 
faith is not ordained; every man has the power 
of resistance (ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦτετὁό μὴ 
πιστεύων, vv. 10, 12). 

6. The immorality of unbelief follows from v. 1, 
and especially v. 10: not to believe God, to con- 
sider Him a liar, is like misbelief and despair, a 
shameful thing, and, as Luther says in the Cate- 
chism, a vice. 

III. Concernine THE Law. 

1. It should be considered as a fact of the reve- 
lation of love, of paternal discipline. 

2. It answers to the originally God-ordained 
human nature, which sin has corrupted and 
grace has healed; the burden and grievousness 
of it to men proves their state of sin, joy in it 
and obedience to it, their state of grace. 

3. Of his ownstrength man cannot fulfil a single 
- commandment; in this the Evangelical Church 
is right. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Do not separate faith and love! This is forbid- 
den, 1. by the origin of faith in the regeneration 
from God who is Love, and 2. by its object, Jesus 
the Christ, in whom the love of God was mani- 
fested, and 8. by its task, to conquer the world 
through love.—Do not fail to distinguish between 
faith and love in the work of regeneration which 
is secured by the former, not by the latter, but 
do not sever them in the sphere of sanctification, 
where faith is the root of love, and love the 
many-branched crown of faith.—You may ascer- 
tain whether you have faith and are born again 
from 1. your love to God the Father, 2. from 
your love of the brethren, 3. from your obedience 
to the Divine commandments, 4. from your fight 
with the world in and around you.—Dr. Chris- 
tian Friedrich Richter, physician at the Orphan 
House of Halle, in Franke’s time, was the author 
of the Christian song: Es kostet viel ein Christ zu 
sein, ete. ‘It costeth much to be a Christian and 
to live conformably to the mind of the pure Spirit, 
for nature finds it very hard, ever to be rec- 
onciled to the death of Christ,’ and the compa- 
nion verse: ‘It is not difficult to be a Christian 
and to live conformably to the mind of the pure 
Spirit, for though nature finds it very hard, ete.’ 
Both are true and good. For the law is only a 
burden to man enfeebled by sin, but not to the 
Christian strengthened by grace, the one, indeed, 


is only enjoined to be good, but the other is en- 
abled to be good.—Obedience to the Divine com- 
mandments notes the recovery of the Spirit, dis- 
obedience notes its decay. Nothing is more 
natural, nothing more adapted to human nature 
created by God after His own Image, than the 
Will of God, consistent with His Nature and ex- 
pressed in the lovingly ordained Law for the 
benefit of His Kingdom, which was given, not 
against man, but for man, not against man, but 
against sin.—Learn from John how to contend 
with error! With all his resoluteness and deci- 
sion, he is so objective and calm, and reasons so 
joyfully on the foundation of truth, that we are 
not even induced to make a personal application 
of his reasoning to others, but rather influenced 
to make it the test of our own standing. 
AUGUSTINE :—Qui habet in memoria et servat in 
vita, qui habet in sermonibus et servat in moribus, 
qui habet audiendo et servat faciendo, aut qui habet 
faciendo, et servat perseverando, ipse est, qui diligit 
Deum. Opere est demonstranda dilectio ne sit in- 
fructuosa nominis appellatio.—You adore the Head, 
and offend the members. He loves His Body. 
Just as if somebody would desire to kiss your 
head, and at the same time trample with nailed 
shoes on your feet. Would you not decline the 
proffered demonstration of honour and exclaim : 
What are you about? You tread on my feet? 
The head would cry more for the trodden mem- 
bers than make account of being honoured. 
SpENER:—The meaning is not, that the keep- 
ing of the Divine commandments does not require 
considerable pains, labour and diligence, for 
that would contradict Luke xiii. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 
7.—The difficulty applies to a burden so oppres- 
sive and painful as to be unbearable.—Spiritual 
life is, as to its nature, an eternal life, and con- 
sists as well in the grace of God which forgives 
sin and imparts new Divine strength, as also in 
the enjoyment of eternal felicity and glory. 
Srarke:—Christianity is not a sham, but a 
true and honest thing which has its foundation, 
its coat of arms and tokens, its works and fruits, 
its profit and happiness.—If thou hast a sense 
of shame and honour, thou wilt surely not hurt 
the saintly children of a saintly father; look, be- 
lievers are the children of thy heavenly Father; 
if instead of loving, thou hate them, thou art 
truly an enemy of God, their Father, and He, in 
His turn, thy enemy.—If thoughtful preachers 
stop long at one matter, and perhaps repeat it 
several times, and with changed phraseology 
make it more clear, be not impatient of it, but 
take note of their zeal and of the importance and 
necessity of the matter treated of.—O, how much 
pain, burden, difficulty and anxiety attend the 
children of the world in theirsins and iniquities, 
of which the children of God are free and deliy- 
ered! Thus many a child of Satan has more 
trouble to find hell, than a child of God to find 
heaven.—O man, do not persuade thyself and do 
not suffer thyself to be persuaded, that the world 
cannot be overcome. ‘This is the infallible sign 
of true and false faith: viz., whether thou con- 
querest the world, or sufferest the world to con- 
quer thee.—The children of God are soldiers and 
knights. The crown must be fought for; faith 
is victorious. Wretched man, if conquest and 
the crowning do not attend thy course! World 


166 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


we  ——————_—$—$— τἠ υὴ---- ς- ἐ- ςςἘ-ςἘς--- ἝἝΚἋ(ὦἁ 


begone beneath my feet. We will trample under 
foot lions and vipers. Come hither, sword of the 
Lord! The blessed state of a righteous man in 
Christ, his Head! He does not fortify the walls 
of houses and cities, but the empire of Satan 
and the walls of Jericho in his heart.—The 
stronger thy faith, the greater thy victory over 
sin, the world, death, the devil and hell.—The 
Bible surpasses, and should be preferred to, all 
books; all other good books are conducted like 
rivulets from this river.—Christ is not only the 
foundation, but also the true centre and chief 
work of our faith, at which alone the believer 
under the practice of self-denial, is ever aiming, 
and into which he does, as it were, ground him- 
self.—As there is nothing more excellent than 
faith, so is nothing more dishonourable than un- 
belief. Faith honours God, and is the mother of 
all virtues; unbelief dishonours God, and is the 
mother of all vices.—Man must not seek the 
true life any where except in Christ; nor cher- 
ish any hope of life beside Him. As long as he 
is without Christ, he has no life; whereas the 
degree to which he is in Christ and partaker of 
His Being, is also the measure of his life.—A 
true Christian is a veritable Christophorus, who 
carries Christ in his heart, and leads his life in 
Him.— 

Besser:—lIf thou art a conqueror, thou must 
haye thy spoils to show.—The lust of the flesh, 
the lust of the eyes and the pride of life are the 
chief trophies, of which the soldiers of Christ 
divest the conquered world, and which they sus- 
pend from the victorious banner of the cross.— 

Hevsner:—Without prejudice to the general 
love of man, a Christian must be especially 
attracted to those who are of one mind with him; 
he must value the true children of God infinitely 
more than the unconverted.—The genuineness 
and holiness of human love betokened by its 
religious character.—All love is worthless with- 
out religion, a mere natural impulse, or masked 
selfishness.—True love is allied to strict conscien- 
tiousness; love must not render us languid or 
indulgent in respect of duty.—If the love to God 
requires obedience, the true love of man also 
must consist in obedience, fidelity and conscien- 
tiousness.—Struggle for this strength (v. 3); to 
be ever complaining is a bad sign.—l. The light 
of faith conquers the errors, illusions and 
delusions of false wisdom, it sees through them, 
perceives their nothingness and masters them; 
the word of Christ is the eternal, unchangeable 
truth; faith the pole-star, that we do not swerve 
from the truth. 2. Faith conquers the allurings 
and fascinations of the world which we encounter 
in its lusts, its riches and honours; it conquers 
them by the love of Christ, by the heavenly riches 
and the eternal glory, which it discloses. 38. It 
conquers the threatenings of the world, the ob- 
stacles which it raises, its persecutions; the call 
of Christ to us is too mighty, and the crown of 
honour offered to us causes us to despise the 
contempt of the world.—This (viz. the conquest 
of the world) is an idea peculiar to Christianity, 
because it only teaches the contrast of the king- 
dom of God and the world.—A lofty thought, to 
face the whole world and to conquerit! This isa 
greater task than that of the world-conquerors; 
they are seryants of the world.—Unbelief is an 


offence against the Majesty of God, a denial of 
the holy miracles in the moral world, which God 
has wrought.— 

V.1. L.in Gesetz und Zeugniss, 1859:— When 
does the feast of the Nativity become to us the birth-day 
of a new life? When its glad tidings excite in us 
anew 1. the undoubting faith that Jesus is the 
Christ; but also 2. grateful love to God, and to 
all those who are our brethren in Christ. 

On νυ. 4. SpurGEon:—A great victory, a great 
birth, a great grace. 

DanneIt:—TZhe Christian’s warfare. 1. The 
warrior (born of God); 2. The enemy (the world) ; 
3. The victory (faith). 

GENTHE, on the tercentenary Anniversary, 
1860, Baptismal Address. How Melanchthon con- 
quered the world in the strength of faith; 1. The 
temptation of the world; 2. The opposition of the 
world; 3. The fear of the world. 

V. 5. ScCHLEIERMACHER :— Our Christmas-joy is 
closely connected with the fact that the faith, that 
Jesus is the Son of God, is the victory which con- 
quers the world. 1. The object of the festal joy, 
that in Jesus is born the Son of God, surpasses 
all similar events in our family and social life, 
for through Him we are made well-pleasing to 
God. 2. The world is destined to be conquered, 
judged, and destroyed as to its transitory and 
corruptible side, but to become more and more 
blessed as to its Divine side, and this has been 
done in Christ and through Christ in believers, 
so that it is one and the same thing to say: the 
the Son of God conquers the world through our 
ΤΙΝ and our faith conquers the world through 
Him. 

Vy. 9-12. F. A. Wour:—Christ the Author and 
Giver of a living religion. 1. Explain and prove 
that this is true of Christ as a Witness, an En- 
sample, and a Surety. 2. The inferences: 
a. Christianity has nothing to fear from all- 
changing time, from false love of novelty, and 
from true zeal for improvement; ὦ. test the gen- 
uineness of your own Christianity by the vitality 
of the faith that is in you. 

Vy. 1-13. Perri:—TVhe Haster-faith, that Jesus 
is the Christ. 1. That we become anew conscious 
of the wholesome virtues of this faith; 2. and 
edify ourselves on this our most holy faith. 

On the Epistle for Dom. Quasimodogeniti [First 
Sunday after Easter—M.] vv. 4-10. 

Heuspner:—TZhe great value of faith in Jesus 
Christ. 1. How it manifests itself: a. in its 
power: it makes us the children of God and con- 
quers the world (vy. 4, 5); δ. in its certainty: it 
is supported by the testimony of God (vv. 6-8); 
2. The duties it enjoins upon us: a. it warns us 
against contempt of faith (v. 9), and ὁ. it lays us 
under the obligation to receive the testimony of 
God (v. 10). » 

Faith in Christ the good part of younger Christians 
(Candidates for Confirmation). 1. Proof: this 
faith makes them the children of God; preserves 
them from the world. 2. How do they acquire 
this faith? By diligent consideration of the testi- 
monies for Jesus, and by ready obedience. 

Continued provision for grown-up children, 1. In 
what it consists; 2. What makes it our bounden 
duty.— 

R. Stien:— What John means by conquering the 
world? Our faith must conquer 1. The unbelief 


CHAP. V. 1-12. 


of the world; 2. The sin and seduction of the 
world; 3. The enmity of the world.— 

What sort of faith does conquer the world? 
1. Faith in Him, who also was not of the world, 
but the eternal brightness of the glory of the 
Father, and the express image of His Person; 
2. Faith in Jesus, the Conqueror of the world.— 

Kaprr:—TZhe Confirmation of regeneration. 
1. How the regeneration of mankind is confirmed 
in Christ; 2. How it is confirmed in individual 
hearts; 3. What influence in that direction out- 
ward confirmation has. 

GeENzKEN:—Build yourselves up on faith by 
the Holy Ghost. 1. This is needful for the regen- 
erate, as feeble newly-born persons (v. 4) ; 2. But 
the foundation, which is laid, stands firm like a 
rock (v. 5); and the Prince of life evermore joins 
us in the Holy Communion (vy. 6); 8. The Holy 
Spirit bears testimony concerning the truth of His 
word, and the power of His life (vv. 6, 8-11). 

F. W. Krummacuer:—The threefold testimony 
for Jesus the Messiah and Saviour of the world 
1. inthe water; 2. in the blood; 3. in the Holy 
Spirit. 

Beyer (in Gesetz und Zeugniss for 1862) :— 
A test of Faith! 1. Dost thou know the victory, 
whereby faith verifies itself? 2. The fountain, 
whence it daily draws fresh nourishment? 3. The 
testimony which gives it assurance ?— 

The testimony of God concerning His Son, 1. to 
us; 2. inus; 3. by us. 

The victorious power of faith, 1. against the sin 
of the world, 2. against the lie of the world. 

Our faith is the victory which conquers the world. 
1. What sortof faith isit? 2. How is it obtained? 
3. How does it conquer the world ?— 

[Ver. 2. Macknigut:—The intention of the 
Apostle was to show, how we may know when 
we love the children of God in a right manner. 
Now this was necessary to be shown, since men 
may love the children of God because they are 
their relations, or because they are engaged in 
the same pursuits with themselves, or because 
they are mutually united by some common bond 
of friendship. But love proceeding from these 
considerations is not the love of the children of 
God which He requires. By what mark then 
can we know, that our love to the children of God 
is of the right sort? ‘‘ By this,” saith the Apostle, 
‘“‘we may know that we love the children of God” 
in a right manner, ‘‘when we love God and” 
from that excellent principle, ‘“‘keep His com- 
mandments,” especially His commandment to 
love His children, because they bear His Image. 
True Christian love therefore is that which pro. 
ceeds from love to God, from a regard to His 
will, and which leadeth us to obey all His com- 
mandments.—M. ]. 

[Ver. 8. Pusey:—‘‘For nothing is grievous or 
burdensome to him who loves. They are not 
grievous, because love makes them light; they 
are not grievous, because Christ gives strength 
to bear them. Wings are no weight to the bird, 
which they lift up in the air until it is lost in 
the sky above us, and we see it no more, and 
hear only its note of thanks. God’s commands 
are no weight to the soul, which, through His 
Spirit, He upbears to Himself; nay, rather, the 
soul, through them, the more soars aloft and 
loses itself in the love of God.” 


167 


Ver. 4. ‘**They are not grievous, because 
every thing which is born of God overcometh the 
world.’ He saith not only whosoever, but 
‘every thing which,’ showing the largeness of 
the gifts. ‘Every thing,’ of every sex or age 
time or clime, ‘which is born of God, over- 
cometh the world,’ and that not of themselves, but 
of the gift of God; not they, but the power, 
through their new birth, in-born in them, faith, 
love, grace, from God, unto God, and they, as 
wielding in them a power not their own, over- 
come the world.—‘The commandments of God 
are not grievous,’ because we have a power im- 
planted in us mightier than all which would 
dispute the sway of God’s commandments and 
God’s love, a power which would lift us above all 
hindrances, carry us over all temptations, impel 
our listlessness, sweep with it whatever opposes 
it, sweep with it even the dulness or sluggish- 
ness of our own wills, the Almighty power of the 
grace of God.” 

“This is the victory, by which the martyrs 
overcame, by which the weak became strong, 
and, in Divine strength, mastered the strong; the 
strength of endurance wearied out the brutal 
might of affliction; children overcame their op- 
pressor; the ignorant took captive the learning of 
the world; fishermen and the tent-maker subdued 
the world; the dying conquered the living; the 
blood of martyrs became the harvest-seed of the 
church. By faith, St. Paul says, ‘they subdued 
kingdoms;’ by faith St. Peter bids us resist the 
evil one. For faith knits us to Christ; faith 
obtains for us the power of Christ; faith prevails 
with Him who is Almighty, and overcomes the 
world, for it has power with Him who has power 
over the world.” 

‘Faith binds us to Him, whois Almighty; but 
faith, too, opens our own eyes to things invisible. 
It imparts to us of the power of the All- 
Powerful, of the wisdom of the All-Wise. It 
gives us to see the nothingness of all things 
which are but for a time. It opens our eyes to 
the majesty and beauty of things eternal. What 
to us are things which perish in the grasp? 
What to us are things of time and sense, save as 
they speak of that which lives when time shall 
cease to be, or as they shall themselves live on, 
purified but indestructible? One only is above 
us, He who made us. All we see is below us. 
His friends we may be, His we have been made, 
who is Lord of the world. The world itself, and 
all which is in the world, is for our use, subject 
to us, as we to God. All things beautiful to 
sight, sweet to taste, transporting in sound, plea- 
sant to smell, and thrilling to touch, all things 
are ours and for us, if used in obedience to their 
and our Maker. But we are above them. They 
were made for us, not we for them; they are 
made to serve us, not we to be slaves to them. 
Faith shows us Him who is above all things, but 
in all things; immortal, invisible, incomprehen- 
sible, in light unapproachable, yet who willeth to 
come unto us, and make His abode in us. God 
made us, because He willed to impart Himself 
to us. He made us, not that He needed us, but 
to show us His love. He has made us for Him- 
self, He willed not to make us apart from Him- 
self. He willed to join us to Himself. He who 
hath and is all things, of which we have the 


168 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


shadow here below, ‘the true riches of wisdom, 
and spiritual delight, royal glory, eternal peace, 
a kingdom incorruptible, eternal joy, overflowing 
peace, true bliss, certain knowledge’ (Lauren- 
tius), pleasure for evermore, He willeth to give 
thee all which is His, and much more, He willeth 
to give thee Himself. Why shall we not trust 
Him with the things of time, or with ourselves, 
who must trust Him with our eternity? Why not 
trust that, for these few days and years, He will 
provide for us, whom He has made for His love, 
if He will not have it, in those countless ages 
which time measures not ?”—M. ]. 

[Secker:—Presumption in our strength is 
destructive to our virtue; confidence of our own 
merit is injurious to our Maker; but a deep 
sense of human unworthiness and of Divine grace 
will inspire us with that lowliness of heart, which 
God will accept, and that vigilance of conduct, 
which He will bless. ‘This,’ therefore, ‘‘is the 
victory that overcometh the world, even our 
faith.’”’—M. ]. 

Ver. 6. Pyte:—‘‘Nor are the effects and influ- 
ences of this great truth more excellent and noble 
than is the ground and foundation of it strong 
and certain. The testimonies given Him at His 
baptism, when God by a voice from heaven de- 
clared Him to be His beloved Son, the Saviour of 
mankind: the miracles at His crucifixion, when 
at the shedding of His innocent blood, we saw 
both water and blood come out of His side; the 
sun was darkened; the earth trembled, and the 
vail of the temple was rent; the signs and won- 
ders done by Him, and by others in His name; 
these three, respectively denoted by ‘the water,’ 
‘the blood,’ and ‘the Spirit,’ are all testi- 
monies of the authority of His Person and mis- 
sion, most unexceptionable, as being evidences of 
that Holy Spirit that cannot deceive us.’’—M. ]. 

[Ver. 12. Suertock :—‘If we reflect upon the 
holiness of God, and His hatred of sin and ini- 
quity, and begin to fear that He can never be 
reconciled to sinners; let us take courage; the 
work is difficult, but the Son of God has under- 
taken it; and how great soever the distance be- 
tween God and us is, yet through the Son we 
have access to Him. If we still fear for our- 
selves, that all may again be lost through our 
own weakness and inability to do good; even 
here help is at hand, the Spirit of God is our 
support, He is the pledge and earnest of our 
redemption. These being the necessary means 
of salvation it was necessary to reveal to the 
world the doctrines concerning the Son and the 
Holy Spirit: and the belief of these doctrines is 
necessary to every Christian, as far as the right 
use of the means depends on the right faith and 
belief of the doctrines. ‘He that hath the Son,’ 
saith St. John, ‘hath life; and he that hath not 
the Son of God hath not life;’ and again: ‘who- 
soever denieth the Son, the same hath not the 
Father.’ For since we can only come to the 
Father through the Son, to deny the Son is to 
cut off all communication between us and the 


Father. The same may be said of the blessed 
Spirit, through whom we are in Christ: ‘If any 
man,’ says St. Paul, ‘have not the Spirit of 
Christ, he is none of His.’ Our blessed Lord 
has Himself told us, that ‘this is life eternal, 
that we may know the only true God, and Jesus 
Christ whom He hath sent.’’’—M. ]. 
[Sermons, ete. 
vy. 1. Hower, Joun, On Regeneration. 
8, 484. 
v. 8. ΤΊΣΠΟΤΒΟΝ, Abp., The Precepts of Chris- 
tianity not grievous. Serm. i. 152. 
OsTERWALD, J. F., Qu’il est nécessaire et 
facile de garder les commandements de 
Dieu. Sermons, 79. 
Warp.aw, R., On the identity of morality 
and religion. Christian Ethics, 240. 
SHERLocK, W., Obedience the best evi- 
dence of our love to God. Sermons, 
ii. 44. 
v. 4. AtLemne, R., The world conqueror. 8vo. 
1676. 
Hare, J C., The victory of faith. 

Faith the victory that overcometh 
the world.—Faith a practical prin- 
ciple.—Office and province of faith.— 
Power of faith in man’s natural life.— 
Power of faith among the heathen and 
among the Jews. 

Prize, P., The Christian’s victory over 

the world. Sermons, iv. 503. 

vy. 7, 8. Among the controversial writers on 
these verses the following have sup- 
ported their genuineness: Dr. Mixu, 

T. Smiru, Kertner, Davip Martin, 
CaLamy, CaLmeEtT, Stoss, Travis, 
Hey, Butter, Mippieton, Noian, 
Hates, ALBER, Br. BurGess, JouHn 
Jones, Carp. WIseMAN; the follow- 

ing assert their spuriousness: Simon, 
Emtiyn, Sir Isaac Newron, Ben- 

son, Porson, Marsu, GrRiEsBACH, 

A. CuLarKE, Jowett, Turron, 
Orme, Scuotz, Horne and the 
authors named above in Lzegetical 

and Critical. Our limits do not 
allow us to give the titles of the 
books in this controversy, which is 

a library in itself. 

vy. 10. Baxter, W., Christ’s witness within us, 
the believer’s special advantage 
against temptations to infidelity. 
Works, xx. 129. 
Warts, I., The inward witness to Chris- 
tianity. 8 Serm. Works, i. 1. 
Metvitt, Henry, The witness in oneself. 
Lecture 58. 
vy. 11, 12. Srepman, Rowtanpd, The mystical 
union of believers with Christ; 
or a treatise wherein that great 
mystery and privilege of the 
saints’ union with the Son of 
God is opened, ὅγο. London, 
1668.—M. }. 


Works, 


CHAP. V. 13-21. 169 


13 


14 
15 
16 


17 
18 
19 
20 


21 


IV. THE CONCLUSION, 


CHAPTER V. 13-21. 


These things have I written’ unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; 
that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe? on the name of 
the Son of God. And this is the confidence that we have in him’, that, if we ask any 
thing* according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear® us, what- 
soever we ask®, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of? him. If any 
man see his brother sin a sin* which 7s not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give 
him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say 
that he shall pray for it*. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not! unto 
death. We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begot- 
ten! of God keepeth himself, and that!? wicked one toucheth him not. And we know 
that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness’. And! we know that 
the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding”, that we may know" him 
that is true’; and we are in him that is true”, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is 
the true God, and eternal life’. Little children, keep yourselves” from idols. Amen”. 


Verse 13. [1 German: “ These things wrote I.”—M.] 

Ξτοῖς πιστεύουσιν B. Cod. Sin. ot πιστεύοντες A.; this reading is preferable on account of th 
witnesses and because it is dificilior—Text. Rec. inserts after ὑμῖν, “trols πιστεύουσιν εἰς 
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ," and continues after αἰώνιον, “iva πιστεύητε εἰς τὸ 
ὄνομα x. τ. ἃ 3” but this reading is not sufficiently authenticated, and probably not without depend- 
ence on Jno. xx. 51. [The Codd. A. B. Sin. al. Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Aethiopic, Armenian, Cassiod., 
Bede, al. are all against the reading of Rec.—But the reading of πιστεύοντες, though found in A, 
and many Versions. is not clearly established; it seems to have been the basis of the reading of Text. 
Rec.—Acwveov before ἔχετε Sin. G. K. al. Theoph., Oecum.; after ἔχετε A. B. al. Vulg. Syr. Rec. 
Cassiod., Bede.—!he most probable reading is: ὑμῖν, ἵνα εἰδῆτε OTe ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, 
τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς TO ὄνομα TOV υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. Huther, Alford.—M.] 

(German: “These things wrote I unto you, that ye may know, that ye have eternal life, ye that believe 
in the name of the Son of God.”—M.] 

Verse 14. [3 German: “towards Him.’—M.]} 

tore ἐὰν τι B.Sin.; ὃ τι ἄν A. (German: “If we ask something.”—M.] 

Verse 15. ϑκαὶ ἐὰν οἴδαμεν, ὅτι ἀκούει ἡμῶν, omitted in A. and Sin., but added by a later hand. [Ger- 
man: “And if we know, that He heareth us.”—M.] ἵ 

60 ἐὰν Sin. Β. α. ἃ1.; ὃ ἂν Α. Καὶ. ἃ]. The Codd. are undecided here, and in the beginning after καὶ, 
between ἐὰν and ἄν. [German: “whatsoever we may ask.”—M. 

Tan αὐτοῦ B.Sin; παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ A.G.K. [German: “which we have asked from Him;’’ Lillie, Al- 
ford.—M. 

Verse 16. [8 German: “ te any man see his brother commit a sin not unto death;” Alford, Lillie: “sinning a sin.”—M.] 

[9 German: “Concerning that I do nt say, that he shall pray.” Similarly Alford, Lillie, al—M.] 

Versel7. 19οὐ πρὸς θάνατον is well authenticated; Vulg. Aeth. omit οὐ; “μὴ is too feebly sustained. 
1 German: “ Born of God” as in the beginning of the verse; the variation is unnecessary.—M. ] 
12 German: “And the wicked one.’—M.| 
Verse 19. [18 German: “And the whole world lieth in the wicked one.” 50 Alford, Lillie, following Syriac, Vulg. and 
many others.—M.]} 
Verse 20. MoiSapev δὲ Β. ΚΞ 51π.--Α, ἃ]. καὶ oidamev.—G.al. omit δὲ and καὶ, asin the beginning of v.18. 
[German: “ But we know,” so Lillie; Alford ‘ Moreover, etc.”—M.] 
[15 German: “asense.”—M.] 

γινώσκομεν A. B.*G. Sin; γινώσκωμεν, B.** K. al. 

1 After τὸν ἀληθινόν A., several minusc., versions, al. insert θεόν: Sin. had originally +, but cor- 
rected into τὸν. [German: “The true One,” so Lillie. Alford, following many translators.—M.] 

18 ζωὴ αἰώνιος, without the Article, is well authenticated; some minusc., add it. John nowhere makes 
use of ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, but ζωὴ αἰώνιος, orn αἰώνιος ζωὴ, or ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος. 

Verse 21. 19 ἑαυτοὺς is better authenticated than ἑαυτά. 
Ὁ ἀμὴν ἃ. K. al; [it is omitted in A. B. Sin. al—M.]—The subscription: IOQANNOY A., Sin. and al. 


mony of the eye- and ear-witnesses of the λόγος 
τῆς ζωῆς; hence ταῦτα ἔγραψα answers to ταῦτα 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. P 2 Ξ 
γράφομεν ch. i. 4 (Bengel), the certainty of the 


The Conclusion. y. 13. These things wrote 
I.—Taira ἔγραψα, like ταῦτα ἔγραψα ch. ii. 26, 
might be referred to the verses immediately pre- 
ceding, if the words annexed permitted such a 
construction: 

That ye may know, that ye have eter- 
nal life, ye that believe in the name of the 
Son of God.—Quite similar to the closing 
verse of the Gospel, ch. xx. 31. The purpose of 
the writing tra εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον corre- 
sponds with the γαρά at the beginning of the 
Epistle, which χαρά was to be filled by the testi- 


possession of eternal life being the ground and 
strength of the joy, which John has, and to which 
he adverts. The words τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ 
ὄνομα Tov υἱοῦ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, annexed to ὑμῖν, primarily 
refer back to ch. iii. 28, but find their last rest- 
ing-place in the κοινωνία ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς 
καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ch. i. 8. Hence ταῦτα 
must be referred neither to vv. θ-12 (Huther), 
nor to vv. 1-12 (S. Schmid), but to the whole 
Epistle (Luther, Bengel, Liicke, Diisterdieck and 
al.), though the inducement to the choice of this 
expression lies in verses immediately preceding, 


170 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


and preparing the concluding portion of the 
Epistle, and there still follow several verses 
which constitute that concluding portion. Note- 
worthy is the difference between the closing verse 
of the Gospel, ch. xx. 31, which adverts to the 


future believing and obtaining eternal life of the 


readers, while our passage asserts their present 
belief and possession of eternal life. [Alford 
sees here with Diisterdieck something like an an- 
ticipatory close of the Epistle. Huther maintains, 
that this verse still belongs to the second main 
part of the Epistle beginning with ch. iii. 23, on 
the ground that ζωὴν αἰώνιον goes back to the 
verses immediately preceding, and that πιστεύειν 
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Tov υἱοῦ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, refers back to ch. 
iii, 23.—M. ]. 

The confidence that prayer is heard. vy. 14, 15. 

Ver. 14. And this is the confidence 
which we have towards Him.—Kai con- 
nects with what goes before, ἡ, e., it connects 
παῤῥησία ἣν ἔχομεν with ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον. This 
confidence consists in this :— 

That if we ask any thing according to 
His will, He heareth us.—lIt is consequently 
the confidence in God, which has the intercourse 
of prayer with Him; this confidence rests on the 
ζωὴ αἰώνιος, springs from it, points back to it, and 
reacts also on it, strengthening and confirming 
it. Cf. ch. iii. 21, 23.--Πρὸς αὐτὸν and τὸ ϑέλημα 
αὐτοῦ must be referred to God the Father, be- 
cause the idea of possessing the ζωῇ αἰώνιος in- 
volves the idea of the Divine Sonship, and the 
παῤῥησία is connected with both. While ἐὰν τὶ 
leaves the object of the prayer quite general and 
indefinite, κατὰ τὸ ϑέλημα limits it, so that it is a 
conditio equissima, latissime patens (Bengel), as we 
may see from the fourth and seventh petitions of 
the Lord’s Prayer, in connection with the others. 
(Cf. Doctrinal and Ethical No. 1.).— Ακούει ἡμῶν 
denotes an attentive, sympathetic hearing, while 
ἡμᾶς would signify a mere hearing.—This is an 
undoubted fact: 

Ver. 15. And if we know that He hear- 
eth us whatsoever we may ask.—Hence 
ἐὰν with the Indicative οἴδαμεν. Winer, p. 310, 
sq.—'O ἐὰν αἰτώμεί)α denotes the general charac- 
ter of the object of prayer. It follows that: 

We know that we have the petitions 
which we have asked from Him.—Eyouev, 
emphatic, placed first. By the side of ἀκούει 
ἡμῶν, we must distinguish ἔχομεν ra αἰτήματα 
(Lorinus: res petite), although the two belong 
together; God hearing our prayers and our 
having go hand-in-hand. The additional clause: 
ἃ ἠτήκαμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ indicates that the having is 
the consequence of prayer preceding it, so that 
the having in point of time does not coincide 
with the prayer, as does the believer’s prayer 
with God’s hearing; but our having is secured; 
ἔχομεν is ποί-εελαμβάνομεν (Lachmann and al.), 
nor must it be construed like a Future (Grotius: 
statim exaudit, at non statim dat).— Am’ αὐτοῦ, as 
in Matth. xx. 20, belongs to ἠτήκαμεν, not to 
ἔχομεν: παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, as in Acts iii. 2, (see Appar. 
Crit., No. 7,), could not, at any rate, denote 
prayers as deposits made with God, as Ebrard 
maintains. 

Intercession for a brother sinning not unto death. 
vv. 16, 17. 

Ver. 16. If any one see his brother com- 


mit asin, not unto death.—Here is supposed a 
specific case, in which the confident petition be- 
comes an intercession for the purpose of keeping 
an erring brother,—after the example of Christ 
(ch. ii. 1; ef. Luke xxii. 31, 32; Jno. xvii. 
9; Heb. vii. 25),—with his Saviour and salva- 
tion, in fellowship with the Redeemer and in the 
participation of eternal life. Additur casus 
omnium maximus; ut possis orare etiam pro altero 
in re gravissima (Bengel). ‘Edy tic ἴδῃ supposes 
an objective possibility; it is not said that some 
one does see, but it may be, the event will show 
it ; consequently: If any one should see it. Winer, 
Ρ. 806, sq. The reference is to an event which 
may be seen, to a fact susceptible of observation, 
asin ch. ili. 17.—Todv ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, denotes a 
member of the Christian Church, and τὰς requires 
to be taken in the same sense. The reference is 
consequently to intimate converse, and to what 
happens and becomes manifest there. This the 
Apostle brings out emphatically in the participial 
form: ἁμαρτάτοντα ἁμαρτίαν: the sinning brother 
stands, as it were, before our eyes. Here we have 
μὴ πρὸς ϑάνατον, not as in vy. 17: οὐ πρὸς ϑάνατον, 
because the reference is to the subjective judg* 
ment of the observer, not to an objectively valid 
principle, not to the establishment of a dogmati- 
cally realidea. Winer, p. 496.— AdeAgoc is there- 
fore not—=proximus quicunqgue (Calov); non-chris- 
tians are excluded (against Ebrard), although 
the reference may not be exactly to ‘‘a regene- 
rate person” (Diisterdieck). 

He shall ask and give him life.—The 
Future αἰτήσει denotes that the intercession may 
be confidently expected, since καὶ δώσει neither 
warrants us to construe the Future, in the deci- 
sive language of the legislation of the Old and 
New Testament (Matth. v. 21, 27, etc.,) as an 
Imperative, nor gives an occasion to assume a 
purely ethical possibility, as Luke xxii. 49: 
κύριε, εἰ πατάξομεν; Rom. x. 14: πῶς οὖν ἐπικαλέ- 
σονται; Shall we smite? how shall they, how can 
they call? See Winer, pp. 294, 295, 331. Hence 
it is not—licebit petere (S. Schmidt). The subject 
is the intercession, τίς, not the Church (Neander), 
or the saints (Meyer). The same subject, αἰτῶν, 
belongs also to δώσει; it is neither—=dabi/ur (var- 
iation of the Vulgate, approved by Bede and 
others), nor to be derived from the idea of prayer, 
αἰτούμενος, rogatus Deus (Beza, Bengel, Liicke, 
Winer, p. 553, and al.). [The Athiopic version 
brings out the right meaning: rogans vivificabit; 
7. e. the asker shall be instrumental in bestowing 
life on the erring brother for whom he inter- 
cedes.—M.]. The grammatical requirements of 
our passage are fully borne out by the cycle of 
thoughts current in the New Testament (Acts iii. 
6; Jas. ν. 15, 20). John here simply contem- 
plates the result as a fact, without adverting to 
the instrumentality, its ways and stages within 
the brother's heart, which was the object of in- 
tercession; repentance and faith, moreover, are 
not excluded, and the interceding brother is not 
viewed as the Saviour, or the representative of 
the Redcemer. Neither may we think of an αὐ. 
monitio et correptio fraterna (Matth. xviii. 15; 8: 
Schmid), nor of the proper demeanour of the 
asker towards his erring brother, as the result 
of his intereessory prayer (Rickli). The final 
effect of intercession is ζωὴ (αἰώνιος), which is 


CHAP. V. 13-21. 


weakened and disturbed by every sin [Alford ; 
This bestowal of life by intercessory prayer, is 
not to be minutely inquired into, whether it is 
to be accompanied with ‘‘correptio fraterna,”— 
whether it consists in the giving to the sinner a 
repentant heart (Grotius, al.), but taken, as put 
by the Apostle, in all its simplicity and breadth. 
Life, viz.: the restoration of that Divine life from 
which by any act of sin he was indeed in peril, 
and indeed in process of falling, but this sin was 
᾿ ποῦ an actual fall.—M. }. 


To them that sin not unto death.—The 
Plural τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι belongs to αὐτῷ, which 
generaliter positum est (Erasmus); the Plural takes 
the supposed case from the sphere of singularity; 
τις has collective force. See Winer, p. 553. It 
is forced and ungrammatical to refer αὐτῷ to him 
that asks, understanding ϑεὸς as the subject, and 
taking τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι as Dativ. commodi: **God 
will give him life for the persons sinning,” as 
Bornemann (Biblische Studien der Stichs. Geistlichen 
I. p. 71,) does.—M7 πρὸς ϑάνατον qualifies auap- 
révew ἁμαρτίαν, or ἁμαρτάνειν, and has conse- 
quently adverbial force. Savaroc, only, if taken 
in the sense of spiritual death, corresponds with 
the context, viz., with the παῤῥησία of prayer 
being heard on the ground of our possession of 
the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, for ζωή in the intercession on be- 
half of the erring brother, and the preposition 
πρὸς, as denoting the aim towards which some- 
thing is directed (Winer, p. 428), require us to 
think of a sinning, which in the conviction of the 
person interceding, must not terminate in ϑάνατος, 
the emptying of all ζωὴ αἰώνιος, and accordingly 
must not absolutely annul fellowship with Christ, 
faith in Him. This is brought out more clearly 
in the next clause. 

There is a sin unto death.—Thus the 
Apostle circumscribes the domain of sinning not 
unto death: itis not infinite. This is directed 
against any possible laxity in the judgment of 
the Church on the sins of believers. Πρὸς ϑάνατον 
has the same meaning here, as in the preceding 
clause. The reference is accordingly to a specific 
sin, to a simple act perceptible (id7) in the 
brother, within the limits of Christian fellowship 


(τὸν ἀδελφον αὐτοῦ), not toa particular, outwardly 


marked category of sins, but to a sinning, and 
committing of sin, which renders it clear to the 
careful observer, that the fellowship of faith with 
Christ, the fountain of eternal life, has been cut 
off, that consequently the ethical life-form ap- 
pears to be inwardly decayed and dying, that 
the moral status of that brother shows itself to 
be in a state of hopeless dissolution, so that it is 
of no avail to pray for such an one, and that 
therefore intercession is not proper. Hence it is 
wrong to transfer to this passage the Old Testa- 


ment idea of nv? NON, ἁμαρτία Savaty- 


φόρος (Numb. xviii. 22), and to refer to capital 
crimes, 6. g. idolatry, adultery, murder, incest, 
which are punishable with death under the secu- 
lar or Mosaic law (Morus, al.), or to the sins 
ecclesiastically punishable with excommunication, 
as if intercession had to conform to the secular 
code of punishment; nor is the reference to 
sinning unto the end of man’s earthly existence 
(Bede and al.), in which connection de Lyra 


171 


rightly observes: ‘(Qui stt peccator non ad mortem, 
sciri non potest nisi per divinam revelationem 3” πρὸς 
Sévarov cannot be rendered ‘‘usqgue ad mortem.” 
Nor is the reference to the physically sick, Jas. v. 
14 (Steinhofer); nor to definite, gross crimes, 
peccatum gravissimum, quod vix remittitur (Am- 
brose), moechia port baptismum commissa (Tertul- 
lian), peccatum invidentiz (Bede). Nor is here 
any description of a condition, “Talis anime sta- 
tus, in quo fides et amor et spes, in summa, vita nova 
exstincta est; si quis sciens volensque mortem amplec- 
titur, non ex illecebris carnis, sed ex amore peccatt, 
sub ratione peccati; repudium gratiz proreticum.” 
(Bengel). Augustine thought first of invidentix 
faces post agnitionem Dei, and added afterwards: 
si in hac perversitate finierit vitam, and then: jidem 
deserere usque ad mortem. Lastly the reference is 
neither to a purely inward act, like obduracy 
(Ebrard), apostasy (de Wette, Liicke), nor to sin, 
perceptible in the walk of men, like the anti- 
christian denial expressed in words (Diister- ° 
dieck), nor to the sin against the Holy Ghost 
(Calvin, Sander and al.). The reference is simply 
to sinning, from which it may be perceived either, 
that no inward absolute severance from the faith 
and denial of Christ may or can be assumed, or 
that the latter is either recognizable or highly 
probable. To the latter case apply the words: 

Concerning that I do not say that he 
shall pray.—The simple negation is, that the 
the Apostle says (οὐ---λέγω), that prayer should 
be made for him who sins unto death. He only 
makes prominent the circumstance that he con- 
fines himself to saying that intercession should 
be made for the person not sinning unto death. 
Hence those commentators are right, who do not 
see here a prohibition (Socinus, Grotius, Nean- 
der, Liicke, Huther and al.). But it is certainly 
not said that we ought, or only are permitted, to 
pray for him (Neander). It is important to note 
the difference of the words employed by the 
Apostle, for whereas before he made use of the 
word αἰτήσει, he now uses ἐρωτήσῃ: ἐρωτᾷν is= 
rogare, and implies equality on the part of the 
asker with him from whom the favour is sought; 
Jesus designates His praying by that term (Jno. 
xiv. 16; xvi. 26; xvii. 9, 15, 20); on the other 
hand αἰτεῖν is—petere, and implies inferiority 
(Diisterdieck), while Bengel regards αἰτεῖν as 
species humilior under the genus épwrav. This 
word épwrav denotes the confident petition of the 
child, praying inquiringly and expecting the 
gift. Hence, due regard being had to the force 
of the term employed, we may discover here the 
sanction of intercession for a brother sinning 
unto death, yet without any assurance of success 
or that the intercession will prevail. But since 
the Apostle advocates this very παῤῥησία and 
Deus non vult, ut pi frustra orent (Bengel), it is 
probably locutio morata et attica for a prohibition. 
Deut. iii. 26. This is also suggested by iva; inthe 
present instance he does not wish to excite and 
promote the purpose of praying. (Cf. Doctrinal 
and Ethical No. 4). 

Ver. 17. All unrighteousness is sin.— 
The subject πᾶσα ἀδικία reminds us of the predi- 
cate ἡ ἀνομία ch. iii. 4. ᾿Ανομία is in contradiction 
with the objectively given law of God, ἀδικία is 
the contradiction and negation of the δικαιοσύνη 
and is concerned with the subjective disposition, 


172 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


though it be wrought from above and subject to 
the law. And this harmonizes with the fact 
that we are concerned with the moral status of 
the sinner in this sinning unto death, and sinning 
not unto death. John manifestly desires to guard 
against any ἀδικία being too lightly dealt with, 
being not considered as ἁμαρτία, though it be μὴ 
mpoc τὸν Yavarov. The Roman Catholics, there- 
fore. have no warrant for determining from the sin 
itself, whether it is peccatum mortale or veniale. 

And there is a sin not unto death.— 
Kai simply connects the sequel; it is not—et qui- 
dem, and the sense: quodlibet nefas est peccatum 
non ad mortem (Bengel); Bengel’s clause: ‘sed ne 
quisquam id levius interpretetur, premittit: est pecca- 
tum’ is only amoral reaction against the perversion 
of the Johannean thought: all unrighteousness 
is sin. The sequel, because of the intercession 
recommended, is added by way of emphasis. Οὐ 
πρὸς ϑάνατον implies the objectively real fact, the 
actual occurrence of euch sin; it defines ἁμαρτία, 
not ἔστιν, as Luther supposes. 

[There are one or two questions, in connection 
with this section, which require to be treated 
somewhat more fully. First, vy. 17, involves a 
prohibition, or what is equivalent to it. But this 
has been denied by many commentators. ‘Ora 
si velis, sed sub dubio impetrandi” (Corn. a La- 
pide); Neander supposes that the offering of 
prayer is permitted, though the obtaining of it 
will be difficult, and arbitrarily imagines the 
prayer in question to be the collective prayer of 
the Church, and that one who sins πρὸς ϑάνατον 
should not be included in the common prayer of 
the Church, lest he might be confirmed in his 
sin; Huther finds in ov λέγω not more than a 
denial of the Apostle that the case of one sinning 
unto death came within the purview of his com- 
mand. Lyra qualifies the prohibition, though 
“non est orandum pro damnatis,” yet we may pray, 
“ἐμέ minus peccaret, et per consequens minus damna- 
retur in inferno.”’—Calvin recognizes the prohib- 
ition, but limits it to extreme cases, adding: ‘‘Sed 
quia rarissime hoc accidit, et Deus, immensas gratix 
suze divitias commendans, nos suo exemplo misericor- 
des esse jubet: non temere in quemquam ferendum 
est mortis «tern judicium, potius nos caritas ad bene 
sperandum flectat. Quod si desperata quorundam 
impietas non secus nobis apparet, ac sic Dominus eam 
digito monstraret, non est quod cerlemus cum justo 
Dei judicio, vel clementiores co esse appetamus.”’—Al- 
ford sums up: ‘Certainly this seems, reserving 
the question as to the nature of the sin, the right 
view of the ov λέγω. By an express command in the 
other case, and then as express an exclusion of 
this case from that command, nothing short of 
an implied prohibition can be conveyed.”— 

Secondly, the question: What is the sin unto death? 
—The canons of interpretation for its solution, and 
some of the principal divergences, chiefly from Dii- 
sterdieck, collected by Alford, are here produced. 

“The First canon of interpretation of the 
ἁμαρτία πρὸς ϑάνατον and οὐ πρὸς ϑάνατον is this: 
that the ϑάνατος and ζωῇ of the passage must corres- 
pond. The former cannot be bodily death, while 
the latter is eternal and spiritual life. This 
clears away at once all those commentators who 
understand the sin unto death to be one for which 
bodily death is the punishment, either by human 
law generally, as Morus and G. Lange, or by the 


Mosaic law (Schéttgen),—or by sickness inflicted 
by God, as Whitby and Benson; or of which 
there will be no end till the death of the sinner 
(thought possible by Bede, and adopted by Lyra). 
This last is evidently absurd, for how is a man 
to know, whether this will be so or not? 

‘<The Seconp canon will be, that this sin unto 
death being thus a sin leading to eternal death, 
being no further explained to the readers here, 
must be presumed as meant to be understood by 
what the Evangelist has elsewhere laid down, con- 
cerning the possession of life and death. Now 
we have from him a definition immediately pre- 
ceding this, in v. 12, ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει τὴν ζωήν" 
ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ϑεοῦ τὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει. And 
we may safely say that the words πρὸς ϑάνατον 
here are to be understood as meaning, ‘‘involving 
the loss of this life which men have only by the union 
with the Son of God.’”’ And this meaning they must 
have, not by implication only, which would be 
the case, if any obstinate and determined sm 
were meant, which would be a sign of the fact of 
severance from the life which is in Christ (see 
ch. iii. 14, 15, where the inference is of this 
kind), but directly and essentially, ¢. 6. in respect 
of that very sin which is pointed at by them. 
Now against this canon are all those interpreta- 
tions, far too numerous to mention, which make 
any atrocious and obstinate sin to be that in- 
tended. It is obvious that our limits are thus 
confined to abnegation of Christ, not as inferred 
by its fruits otherwise shown, but as the act 
of sin itself. And so, with various shades of 
difference, as to the putting forth in detail, 
most of the best commentators, both ancient 
and modern: e. g., Aretius, Luther, Calvin, 
Beza, Piscator, Corn. a Lapide, Tirinus, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Liicke, Huther, Diisterdieck. 

«‘The Tuirp canon will help us to decide, with- 
in the above limits, what especial sin is in- 
tended. And it is, that by the very analogy of 
the context, it must be not a state of sin, but an 
appreciable act of sin, seeing that which is op- 
posed to it in the same kind, as being not unto 
death, is described by ἐὰν τις ἴδῃ ἁμαρτάνοντα. So 
that all interpretations which make it to bea 
state of apostacy, all such as, 6. g., Bengel’s (see 
above), do not reach the matter of detail which 
is before the Apostle’s mind. 

«In enquiring what this is, we must be guided 
by the analogy of what St. John says elsewhere. 
Our state being that of life in Jesus Christ, there 
are those who have gone out from us, not being 
of us, ch. ii. 19, who are called avtixpioror, who 
not only ‘“‘have not” Christ, but are Christ’s 
enemies, denying the Father and the Son (ch. ii. 
22), whom we are not even to receive into our 
houses nor to greet (2John10,11). These seem 
to be the persons pointed at here, and this is the 
sin: viz. the denial that Jesus is the Christ, the 
incarnate Son of God. This alone of all sins 
bears upon it the stamp of severance from Him 
who is the Life itself. As the confession of 
Christ, with the mouth and in the heart, is salva- 
tion unto life (Rom. x. 9), so the denial of Christ, 
with the mouth and in the heart, is sin unto 
death. This alone of all the proposed solutions 
seems to satisfy all the canons above laid down. 
For in it the life cast away and the death in- 
curred strictly correspond: it strictly corre- 


CHAP. V. 13-21. 


1738 


sponds to what St. John has elsewhere said 
concerning life and death, and derives its expla- 
nation from those other passages, especially from 
the foregoing y. 12: and it is an appreciable act 
of sin, one against which the readers have been 
before repeatedly cautioned (ch. 11. 18 sqq.; iv. i. 
sqq.; v. ὃ, 11, 12). And further, it is in exact 
accordance with other passages of Scripture 
which seem to point at a sin similarly distin- 
guished above others: Matth. xii. 31 sqq., and 
so far as the circumstances there dealt with allow 
common ground, with the more ethical passages, 
Heb. vi. 4 sqq., x. 25 sqq. In the former case, 
the Scribes and Pharisees were resisting the 
Holy Ghost (Acts vil. 51), who was manifesting 
God in the flesh in the person and work of Christ. 
For them the Lord Himself does not pray (Luke 
xxiii. 34): they knew what they did: they went 
out from God’s people and were not of them: re- 
ceiving and repudiating the testimony of the 
Holy Ghost to the Messiahship of Jesus.’’—M. ]. 

Assurance of redemption. vv. 18, 20. 

Ver. 18. We know that every one who 
is born (out) of God, sinneth not.—Each 
of these three concluding verses begins with 
οἴδαμεν: Bengel: anaphora. The Evangelist re- 
fers to εἰδῆτε v. 18, and thus describes the proper 
consciousness of the Christian in his attitude to 
sin (v. 18), the world (v. 19), and the Redeemer 
(v. 20). Πᾶς γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Yeov signifies 
every one who is, and abides, born of God; the 
power of regeneration, of the life given and re- 
ceived in regeneration, operates from the past 
into the present; as such οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, as such 
sin is foreign to him, Rom. vii. 20; ef. ch. iii. 9. 
—It is unnecessary to supply πρὸς ϑάνατον (Bede, 
Beza and al.), and arbitrary to understand an 
abiding in sin, or a falling from grace (Calvin), 
or the not frequent occurrence of the sin unto 
death and sin in general (de Wette). 

But he that hath been born of God, 
keepeth himself, and the wicked one 
doth not touch him.—The opposite (ἀλλὰ), 
refers not only to the predicate, but, since the 
subject is particularly specified, to the whole 
clause, and the two clauses (οἴδαμεν 6r-—and 6 
γεννηθεὶς κ. τ. A.) are independently codrdinated. 
The Aorist indicates the historical fact; that hath 
been born again (in opposition to Sander who dis- 
covers this in the Perfect, and Bengel, ‘preteri- 
tum grandius quiddam sonat, quam aoristus; non 
modo qui magnum in regeneratione gradum asseculus, 
sed quilibet, qui regenitus est, servat se.”) ἘὙηρεῖ 
αὑτὸν indicates moral effort and self-exertion; οὐ 
φύσει εἰς ἀναμαρτησίαν προβαίνει (Oecumenius); sin 
occurs, approaches, but he sustains the conflict, 
guarding himself in his peculiar nature and the 
Divine gift of eternal life, which hinders, spoils 
and drives away sin. Thus sin destroys man 
himself; it is in virtue of his self-guarding that 
the σπέρμα τοῦ ϑεοῦ abides in him (ch. iii. 9); we 
must neither supply ἁγνόν (1 Tim. vy. 22), nor 
ἄσπιλον (Jas. i. 27. Carpzov, Liicke, al.), nor 
take τηρεῖσθαι in the sense of being on one’s guard 
(Ebrard). Cf. ch. iii. 8. [Alford justly objects 
to this and similar expositions, and retaining the 
reading αὑτόν A. B. Vulg. Jer., renders * it 
keepeth him,” viz. the Divine birth, adding, “it 
is this, and not the fact of his own watchfulness, 


one, as in ch. iii. 9, where the same is imported 
by ὅτι τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ ov δύναται 
ἁμαρτάνειν, ὃτι ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ γεγέννηται. The ration- 
alistic commentators insist on τηρεῖ ἑαυτόν, as 
showing, as Socinus, ‘‘aliqguid prestare eum atque 
efficere, qui per Christum regeneratus fuerit;’ and 
the orthodox commentators have but a lame 
apology to offer. Diisterdieck compares ἁγνίζει 
ἑαυτόν, ch. iii. 8. But the reference there is 
wholly different—yiz. to a gradual and earnest 
striving after an ideal model; whereas here the 
τηρεῖσθαι must be, by the very nature of the case, 
so far complete that the wicked one cannot ap- 
proach: and whose self-guarding can ensure this 
even for a day? Cf. Jno. xvii. 15, ἵνα τηρήσῃς 
αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ Tovypov, which is decisive.’’—M. ]. 
The clause annexed by καὶ notes the difficult but 
successful conflict. The enemy, ὁ πονηρὸς, ch. iii. 
12, is Satan, οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ, though he would 
fain do it, hostile attacks, Satanic assaults, temp- 
tations are not wanting (1 Pet. v. 8); but the 
point of complication between Satan and the re- 
generate is not reached, the wrestling is wanting; 
the regenerate keeps Satan at a distance, wards 
him off; Bengel: malignus appropinquat, ut musca 
ad lychnum, sed non nocet, ne tangit quidem. “ΤῊ 
the πανοπλία τοῦ ϑεοῦ he is guarded against all 
the μεθοδεῖαι τοῦ διαβόλου Eph. vi. 11 sqq.” (Hu- 
ther). Luther and Calvin also refer to the ar- 
mour of God, so that, as in John xvii. 11, 12, 15; 
Rey. iii. 10, God is the Preserver [Calvin: ‘* Utut 
malignus renatum ad peccatum solicitet, tela tamen 
illius irrita cadunt, quoniam renatus scuto fidet muni- 
tus ea repellit et diabolo per fidem resistit.”,—M.]. 
But here the Apostle contemplates only the re- 
sult, and not the way to it. Additions such as 
letaliter (Calvin), finaliter (E. Schmid), are un- 
necessary. But 6 πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεπαι αὐτοῦ de- 
pends of course on the careful τηρεῖν ἑαυτὸν (Diis- 
terdieck, Huther). [Alford: ‘ As the Prince of 
this world had nothing in our blessed Lord, even 
so on His faithful ones who live by His life, the 
Tempter has no point dappui, by virtue of that 
their γέννησις by which they are as He is.” —M. ]. 

Ver. 19. We know that we are (out) of 
God.—The second οἴδαμεν repeats by way of in- 
troduction and in pregnant abbreviation (ἐκ τοῦ 
ϑεοῦ ἐσμέν), and with application to himself and 
his church, the believer’s consciousness of his 
Divine sonship. There is no occasion whatever 
to understand here the peculiar revelation vouch- 
safed to the Apostles, or to explain εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ 
Jeot—=a Deo pendere illique adherere (Socinus). 
The principal sentence is the independent clause, 
annexed like vv. 18, 20, by καὶ, viz.: 

And the whole world lieth in the 
wicked one.—For the world is the territory 
and domain of Satan, on which account, and be- 
cause ὃ πονηρὸς occurs in y. 18, and we have here 
an antithesis to ὁ ϑεὸς, τῷ πονηρῷ is masculine, 
and not neuter (Lyra, Socinus, Grotius, who 
however allows an allusion to Satan, Spener, 
Rickli and al.). Ἔν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται denotes like 
ἐν τῇ συγκλήτῳ κεῖται (Polyb. VI. 14, 6), both the 
competency of Satan and dependence on him as 
the controlling power; in (ἐν) him lies the world, 
[it is circumscribed by him and in his power— 
M.]; κεῖται denotes the passiveness of the state, 
of the situation; he ἅπτεται τοῦ κόσμου continually 


which preserves him from the touch of the wicked | in the most powerful and destructive manner 


174 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


The ethical medium of sin is not expressed here, 
only the result is indicated. Referring here, 
with Spener and Steinhofer, to Is. xlvi. 3, and 
explaining it in analogy with regeneration, as if 
the world were lying in the wicked one like a 
child in its mother’s womb, is false per se and not 
warranted by that passage wrongly rendered by 
Luther.—'0 κόσμος ὅλος refers to all the unre- 
generate; God’s children do not belong to the 
world, though ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, yet are they not ἐκ τοῦ 
κόσμου (Jno. xvii. 11,16), not ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου (ch. 
iii. 8). Bengel well observes: ““ Zotus mundus, 
isque universus, eruditos, honestos, aliosve complectens 
omnes, exceptis duntaxat, qui Deo se et Christo vin- 
dicarunt, non modo non tangitur, sed plane jacet 
(remains lying), per tdololatriam, cecitatem, frau- 
dem, vim, lasciviam, impietatem, malitiam omnem, 
in malo, expers et vite ex Deo et διανοίας (1 Cor. τ. 
10; xi. 32). Brevi hac summa vividissime denota- 
tur horribilis status mundi. Commentarii loco est 
ipse mundus et mundanorum hominum actiones, ser- 
mones, contractus, lites, sodalitia.”” Hence our pas- 
sage does not contradict ch.ii.2; iv. 14. God 
aims at the redemption of the whole world 
through Christ and He is enough for the whole 
world; but Satan also, as the antagonist of God, 
aims atthe whole world. The world is to be 
taken as the territory which embraces all, not 
as the sum-total produced by the adding together 
of allindividuals. [Alford: ‘‘ Had not Christ be- 
come a propitiation for thesins of the whole world, 
were He not the Saviour of the whole world, none 
could ever come out of the world and believe on 
Him; but as it is, they who believe on Him, come 
out and are separated from the world; so that 
our proposition here remains strictly true: the 
κόσμος isthe negation of faith in Him, and as such 
lies in the wicked one, His adversary.’’—M. ]. 

Ver. 20. But we know, that the Son of 
God is come.—The third οἴδαμεν whose object: 
ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς Tow ϑεοῦ ἥκει, 2. e., has come: he condi- 
tions the εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ Yeod which continues in εἶναι 
ἐν τῷ ϑεῷ; had He not come, we should still lie 
like ὁ κόσμος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ. Hence it ᾿βεεξέφανερώθη 
ch. iii. 8 and not adest (Bengel referring to 
Mark viii. 3).—[‘‘ δὲ closes off and sums up all: 
ef. 1 Thess. v. 23; 2 Thess. iii. 16; Hebr. xiii. 
22 al. This not being seen, it has been altered 
to καί, as there appeared to be no contrast with 
the preceding.”’ Alford.—M. ]. 

And hath given us a sense that we 
know the true One.—The subject of δέδωκεν 
is ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ϑεοῦ, not as Bengel Deus, as the Send- 
er, ordaining the coming of Jesus. For Jesus 
is also the Mediator of the truth and of know- 
ledge [7. 6., He bestows to us the truth and this 
knowledge—M. ], (Diisterdieck). Διάνοια is the 
faculty or sense of knowing, not insight or 
knowledge (Liicke, de Wette), nor the activity 
of thinking out all the points in contrast with a 
faith void of thought (Paulus), 2 Pet. iii. 1; Eph. 
iv. 18; i. 18 (ὀφθαλμοὶ τῆς καρδίας or τῆς διανοίαςῚ, 
or mind (Matth. xxii. 87; Luke i. 51; Eph. ii. 
8 1Col 1. 91 1. Retii. 135: Hebr. vitiv10s.-x. 
16), sensus cognoscendi (Lyra), sensus et gustus re- 
rum divinarum (a Lapide), the spiritual sense (1 
Cor. ii. 12, 14), whose aim (iva), but not whose 
substance is γινώσκειν τὸν ἀληθινόν. Cf. ch. 11, 8, 
4: Jno. xvii. 8. The object of this cognition is 
evidently God, gui re vera Deus est, ut eum ab ido- 


lis omnibus discernat (Calvin), in contrast with 
every Deus fictitius. Bengel refers to the Son 
without any warrant for doing so. 

And we are inthe true One, in His Son 
Jesus Christ.—Another independent proposi- 
tion annexed by καὶ, as in v.19. ’Eopév ἐν τῷ 
ἀληθινῷ, designates, as before, God, which is also 
evident from the pronoun in ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ. 
This is the extreme antithesis of keira: ἐν τῷ 
πονηρῷ, the climax of εἶναι ἐκ tov ϑεοῦ. The 
words ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ fully denotes 
the Mediator, the ground and stay both of the 
knowledge and of the position of the believing 
child of God, and it denotes this by év, not by 
διά, in, not per, in order to mark the permanent 
character of this life-fellowship; iserimur in 
Christum et unum efficimur cum Deo. Cf. ch. ii. 
8-6; iii. 2, It is therefore no opposition, as 
seems to be assumed by the Vulgate (which con- 
nects by et simus with the clause beginning with 
iva), Lyra, Erasmus and al. 

This is the true God and eternal life.— 
Οὗτος like ἐκεῖνος, does not refer, as it were, in a 
merely mechanical manner, to the literally or lo- 
cally nearest or more remote noun, but also to 
the noun, psychologically nearer or more remote. 
Winer, p. 175. Thus in v. 16, ἐκείνη did not refer 
to the grammatically and locally distant ἁμαρτία 
μὴ πρὸς ϑάνατον, but to the immediately pre- 
ceding ἁμαρτία πρὸς; τὸν ϑάνατον. So here the 
mediating Son is not in point of sense the near- 
est, but ὁ ἀληθινός. Under the influence of the 
christological conflicts it may have been natural, 
with reference to the Arian heresy which was 
joined by the more modern antitrinitarians, to 
refer οὗτος to the Son; but the discipline of 
grammar and language requires us to refer it to 
the Father. (this has been done by most commen- 
tators, also by Hofmann, Schriftbeweis I. 146, 
down to Sander, Ebrard, Besser, Stier [ad Jno. 
xvii. 3. Vol. 5, p. 8927 of our time), though the 
arrangement, the reference taken locally, might 
induce us to think of Christ, yet this is not the 
case, if the internal structure of the thought,— 
in which God the Father is the chief, and the 
Son simply the Mediator,—is attentively consid- 
ered. But what does οὗτος refer to? To ἐν τῷ 
aanbiv@. That would make: οὗτος (ὁ ἀληθινός --- 
ὁ ἀληθινός ϑεός, but that would be weak and shal- 
low. But if we take οὗτος, δεικτικῶς, of Christ, 
it is a terse and strong conclusion of the Epis- 
tle, and a powerful motive for the concluding 
exhortation.—The words: καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος belong 
to οὗτος. Grammatically it is not singular 
(Winer, p. 144), still less in point of thought: 
for God is essentially ζωΐ, and so is Christ (Jno. 
xiv. 6), even ζωὴ αἰώνιος. In like manner He is 
called φῶς (ch. i. 5), ἀγάπη (ch. iv. 8, 16), πνεῦμα 
(Jno. iv. 24). Bengel, on vita externa, has the 
subtle note: ‘‘initium epistole et fines conveniunt.” 
It is therefore wrong to contend, that οὗτος ἐστιν 
ὁ ἀληθινὸς ϑεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος ought to be referred 
to the Son, as if His Divinity rested on this pas- 
sage, and at the same time to overlook, that ἐν 
τῷ ἀληθινῷ denotes primarily God the Father, 
nor is it right to overlook here the tautology 
(this One, the true One, is the true God), and to 
apprehend an identification of the Father and 
the Son, which would be un-johannean, if the 
clause were referred tothe Son. Now John dis- 


CHAP. V. 13-21. 


175 


tinguishes between the Father and the Son, but 
not between God and not-God. In the Son from 
the Father we have the Father, eternal life, and 
all that which is the Father’s, and only in Him; 
hence this turn to the Son and the warning 
against all idols; the Son is the living Image, 
the Christian is in no point idolatrous! [Alford: 
“The grounds on which the application to Christ 
is rested are mainly the following: 1. that οὗτος, 
most naturally refers to the last mentioned sub- 
stantive: 2. that ζωὴ αἰώνιος, as a predicate, more 
naturally belongs to the Son than to the Father: 
8. that the sentence, if understood of God the 
Father, would be aimless, and tautological. But 
to these it has been well and decisively answered 
by Liicke and Diisterdieck: 1. that οὗτος more 
than once in St. John belongs not to the nearest 
substantive, but to the principal one in the fore- 
going sentence, e. g., in ch. ii. 22 and in 2 Jno. 
7: and that the subject of the whole here has 
been the Father, who is the ὁ ἀληθινός of the last 
verse, and the Son is referred back to Him as 6 
υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, thereby keeping Him, as the pri- 
mary subject, before the mind; 2. that as little 
can ζωὴ αἰώνιος be an actual predicate of Christ, 
as of the Father. He is indeed ἡ ζωΐ ch. i. 2, 
but not ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Such an expression, 
used predicatively, leads us to look for some ex- 
pression of our Lord’s, or for some meaning which 
does not appear on the surface to guide us. And 
such an expression leading to such a meaning 
we havein Jno. xvii. 3, αὕτη δὲ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωΐ, 
ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν ϑεόν, καὶ ὃν 
ἀπέστειλας ᾿Τησοῦν Χριστόν. He is eternal life in 
Himself, as being the fount and origin of it: He 
is it to us, seeing that to know Him is to possess 
it. I own I cannot see, after this saying of our 
Lord with σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν ϑεόν, how any one 
can imagine that the same Apostle can have had 
in these words any other reference than that 
which is given in those; 8. this charge is alto- 
gether inaccurate. As referred to the Father, 
there is init no tautology and no aimlessness. 
It seems to identify the ὁ ἀληθινός mentioned be- 
fore, in a solemn manner, and leads on to the 
concluding warning against false gods. As in 
another place the Apostle intensifies the non- 
possession of the Son by including in it the aliena- 
tion from the Father also, so here at the close 
of all, the ἀληθινὸς ϑεός, the fount of ζωὴ αἰώνιος, 
is put before us as the ultimate aim and end, to 
be approached ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ, but Himself the 
One Father both of Him and of us who live 
through Him.’’—M. ]. 

Final request. v. 21: Little children, keep 
yourselves from idols.—Texvia indicates the 
affectionate warmth and depth of the Apostle. 
The exhortation φυλάξετε ἑαυτούς reminds them of 
great danger, against which they must be cour- 
ageously on the alert; they themselves are ex- 
posed to great corruption. Bengel: ‘Elegantia 
activi verbi cum pronomine reciproco plus dicit, quam: 
custodimint. Custodite vos ipsos, me absente,—neque 
solum ab eorum cultu, sed etiam ab omni eorum com- 
munione et communionis specie.” ᾿Απο τῶν εἰδώλων 
denotes, that believers must withdraw from the 
idols, surrounding and in immediate proximity 
to them, in order to be guarded against them. 
The εἴδωλα are figures of imaginary deities, and 
as contrasted with the true God, who is Eternal 

31 


Life, denote the manufacture of the creature; 
the decisive point, or the thing decided here is 
not whether they are made with hands for the 
grossest forms of heathenism, or in imagination 
and thought for its more subtle forms; the real 
point is that they are self-made, untrue, unliving, 
and strictly speaking, nothing. 1 Thess.i. 9; 1 
Cor. x. 19; xii. 2. Diisterdieck, therefore, is wrong 
in following here an Htymologicum ineditum in Biel, 
sub voce (TO μὲν εἴδωλον οὐδεμίαν ὑπόστασιν ἔχει, τὸ δὲ 
ὁμοίωμα τινῶν ἐστιν ἔνδαλμα), and making εἴδωλον 
tritons or centaurs, and ὁμοίωμα, constellations, 
men and beasts; the Diana of the Ephesians, for- 
sooth, was also an εἴδωλον. Cf. Rom. i. 23, 25.— 
We are fully warranted to refer here, with Ter- 
tullian, Oecumenius, Diisterdieck and others, to 
idols proper, but equally warranted to refer also 
(with Bede, Rickli, Sander and others) to the 
self-made representations and ideas of the false 
teachers and their dupes, which, like the truth, 
they require to be received and submitted to. 
We may even see, with Ebrard, a reference to 
images of God or gods or saints in reality, or in 
imagination, for whom heathenish worship is re- 
quired. The εἴδωλα are so dangerous because 
they are the objects of εἰδωλολατρεία. As this ap- 
plied then to the church-frontier in contact with 
heathenism, so it applies at this time to the 
Mariolatry in the Church of Christ, and to the 
worship of genius, to Schiller-worship, etc., in 
His Church. [The literal and figurative reference 
in this closing charge, seems to be required by 
the context, and, in fact, by the whole tenor of 
the Epistle; the reference being both to literal 
idols, and to spiritual idolatry.—M. ]. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The assurance that our prayers will be 
heard rests upon the life-fellowship with God 
the Father through faith in Christ, and forbids 
its being circumscribed, as to the substance of 
our prayers, within limits narrower than those 
given by the Lord Himself (Matth. vi. 9-13), but 
neither pursues any other course than that indi- 
cated in Matth. vi. 33, sq., viz., it expresses in the 
way of ethical effort what life really stands in 
need of. So St. Paul in Rom. vili. 14-17. Ab- 
solutely exaudible* is the prayer for the Holy 
Spirit and spiritual gifts (Luke xi. 13), relatively 
exaudible are our prayers for temporal gifts 
quantum non est impedimento ad salutem (Matth. 
XXvi. 39). 

2. Intercession is very potent (v. 16); it is a 
work of love, an act of kindness. 

3. Every sin is, properly speaking, unto death, 
which is the wages of sin; there is no sin, which 
is not per se unto death, unto condemnation. In 


this respect, the maxim of the Stoics and Jovianus 


holds good, that omnia peccata paria, no matter 
how different they may be; and there is only one 
way towards the forgiveness and cancelling of 
sin, viz., Christ and His high-priestly work, and 
the fellowship of faith with the Sinless One. 
Consequently it is not the species or greatness 
of sin, per se, which constitutes it a sin unto 
death, but rather the effect of sin on the sinner’s 
relation to the Redeemer, or the nature of the 
disturbance of this relation, as evidenced by sin. 


ἜΤΙ coin this word, which signifies “that which may be 
heard or granted,” for want of a better term.—M.]. 


176 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


The sin which indicates a permanent falling 
away from Christ, is sin unto death. The Ro- 
mish distinction of peccatum mortale and peccatum 
veniale and the restriction of the former to seven, 
is wrong; for there is always the danger that 
the sin assumed to be peccatum veniale, and re- 
ceived in excuse of it, may turn into peccatum 
mortale, and that that which from a lower stand- 
point appears as peccatum veniale, is afterwards 
in its further progress peccatum mortale. 

4. Intercession for those who sin unto death is im- 
proper, because such intercession is inexaudible, 
because such sin cannot be forgiven. Cf. Riehm, 
Lehrbegriff des Hebrierbriefs, Τ1., pp. 763-775. The 
words ἀδύνατον---πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοι--- 
av (Heb. vi. 4-6), as well as οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ 
οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ TO αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι (Matth. 
xii. 82) distinctly indicate the reason why the 
Apostle neither requires, nor advises us to make 
intercession for those sinning unto death. Cf. 
Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II., p. 340, sqq. Inter- 
cession for suicides must, at all events, be judged 
from this stand-point.—[Jeremy Taylor: ‘‘Every 
Christian is in some degree in the state of grace, 
so long as he is invited to repentance, and so 
long as he is capable of the prayers of the Church. 
This we learn from those words of St. John: 
‘All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not 
unto death,’ that is, some sorts of sin are so in- 
cident to the condition of men, and their state 
of imperfection, that the man who hath com- 
mitted them is still within the method of pardon, 
and hath not forfeited his title to the promises 
and covenant of repentance; but ‘there is a sin 
unto death ;’ that is, some men proceed beyond 
the measures and economy of the Gospel, and the 
usual methods and probabilities of repentance, 
by obstinacy, and preserving a sin, by a wilful, 
spiteful resisting, or despising the offers of 
ae and the means of pardon; for such a man 

t. John does not encourage us to pray; if he be 
such a person as St. John described, our prayers 
will do him no good; but because no man can 
tell the last minute or period of pardon, nor 
just when a man is gone beyond the limit, and 
because the limit itself can be enlarged, and 
God’s mercies stay for some longer than for 
others, therefore St. John left us under the in- 
definite restraint and caution; which was dero- 
gatory enough to represent that sad state of 
things in which the refractory and impenitent 
have immerged themselves, and yet so indefinite 
and cautious, that we may not be too forward in 
applying it to particulars, nor in prescribing 
measures to the Divine mercy, nor in passing final 
sentences upon our brother, before we have 
heard our Judge Himself speak. ‘Sinning a sin 
not unto death,’ is an expression fully signifying 
that there are some sins which though they be com- 
mitted and displeased God, and must be repented 
of, and need many and mighty prayers for their 
pardon, yet the man is in the state of grace and 
pardon, that is, he is within the covenant of 
mercy ; he may be admitted, if he will return to 
his duty: so that being in a state of grace is 
having a title to God’s loving-kindness, a not 
being rejected of God, but a being beloved of 
Him to certain purposes of mercy, and that hath 
these measures and degrees.’’—M. ]. 

5. The regenerate, as such, according to the 


spirit, does not sin, though the flesh ever and 
anon causes him to fall. 

6. The sins of the regenerate are not unto 
death, because forgiveness and atonement are 
sought and found in Christ. 

7. None but believing Christians, born of 
God, are not subject to the world-power of Sa- 
tan; those who are subject to it, are least 
sensible of it; the Christian, who has become 
free, perceives and feels it in its hostility to 
him and his resistance to it. 

8. Vital piety finds rest only in God, from 
whom it comes. : 

9. Although the absolute and immoveably 
fixed assurance (certitudo) of salvation, such as 
the Methodists and Baptists suppose to possess, 
is neither possible nor biblically established, 
yet we may attain unto a sure confidence ( fidu- 
cia), and maintain it in opposition to the 
Romish decrees, which not only reject the im- 
possibility of final apostasy, but also deny this 
confidence of the Christian (Cone. Trid. Sess. vi. 
9, 15, sq.). 

10. The Reformed are fully justified in their 
rejection of altars, images and similar instrumenta 
superstitionum with respect to the abuses of the 
Roman Catholics, and even down to the present 
time with their extreme Mariolatry, but they 
err in confounding the abuse of the several ob- 
jects with the objects themselves and in changing 
the one into the other, in lodging complaints 
against the natural sphere of art instead of press- 
ing it into the higher service [of religion—. ]. 
The liberty of the Lutheran Church cannot be 
over-estimated.—Images of God will always re- 
main hazardous, not only in the Zwinglian or 
Puritan sense.— 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Care for thy friends, that they may be and re- 
main assured of the possession of eternal life, 
despite the temptations and troubles on earth.— 
Thou hast confidence in the purity of mind of 
some loved man, how much more shouldest thou 
confide in the true God?—If distrust is disgrace- 
ful and fraught with much unhappiness in our 
intercourse with men, how much more disgrace- 
ful and productive of unhappiness is distrust of 
the glorious God?—Seeing the light of the world 
in regeneration is no warrant that this Sun will 
always smile in His brightest light, unclouded 
and without stormy days, on the firmament of 
the soul; but we know, without the gift of pro- 
phecy, as the children of God, as Christians, 
that it is day.—Pray for everything, but be 
urgent unto intercession for thy erring brother. 
Prefer to speak of an erring brother to God than 
to other men.—Dismal is the high-mindedness 
which fancies that it can never fail with God, 
but equally dismal is the pusillanimity, which 
afraid that all is to no purpose, conducts to des- 
pair.—As a Christian be not a minor, but volun- 
teer also to act as guardian.—Sin violates not 
only the Divine command before us, and the 
Majesty of God above us, but also the Image of 
God in us!—Every sin may become a sin unto 
death, as long as it remains unforgiven.—Every 
sin checks and disturbs the eternal life in thee; 
the greatest danger, however, is not the com- 


CHAP. V. 13-21. 


177 


μον τς eee 0 τ ee 


mission of, but consenting unto sin, and this is 
the more dangerous, as your sensibility has be- 
come more acute and your will more resolute 
under the growth of sanctification. Beware of 
genius-worship !— 

Luraer:—Thou must learn to ery and not sit 
down by thyself, or lie on a bench, with drooping 
head, or shaking it, and lacerate or consume thy- 
self with thy anxious thoughts, caring and 
fretting how to get free, and regarding nothing 
except thy own misery and ill-fortune, and 
wretchedness. But come, idler that thou art, 
fall down on thy knees, lift up thy hands and 
eyes to heaven, sing ἃ psalm or say the Lord’s 
prayer, and lay thy trouble before God, and with 
streaming eyes pour forth thy supplications and 
make known thy wants.—Prayer, the opening of 
our grief, the lifting up of our hands, are the 
sacrifices which are most acceptable to God.— 
He Himself desires thee to acquaint Him with 
thy distress, instead of burdening and oppressing, 
of torturing and lacerating thyself with it, and 
thus multiplying one calamity into ten or a 
hundred. He wants thee to be too weak to carry 
and overcome such a load, that thou mayest learn 
to grow strong in Him, and that He may be 
glorified in thee through His strength. Behold 
the opposite course makes people who are called 
Christians, but nothing else than vain babblers 
and praters, who see much of faith and the 
Spirit, but know not what it is, or what they 
see. 

SrarKe:—Holy Scripture is our Epistle of 
God to us, in which He reveals to us His gracious 
will, as it were, in His own handwriting, and 
His purpose to give us eternal life.—Faith is 
never too strong, it may and must grow stronger. 
Where is confidence of faith, there is joyful- 
ness. The more faith gets filled with the riches 
of God, the more jubilant is its rejoicing in the 
abundance of its satisfaction: it is heaven on 
earth!—The prayer of the lip must be joined to 
the desire of the heart.—Wouldest thou pray so 
that thy prayers shall be heard, thou must be 
full of faith, holy, and a child of God, otherwise 
thou art abominable.—Prayer is not only a 
Christian duty, but a glorious benefit. Simplicity 
is not ignorance. The former befits the Chris- 
tian, but not the latter. Christians must know. 
Ignorant Christians are unchristian.—Learned 
put ungodly men are unlearned; the regenerate 
are truly learned, as those who through the 
knowledge of Christ have been made apt for the 
kingdom of sheaven and eternal salvation.— 
Subtle idolatry is not better than gross idolatry, 

BenceL:—The lamentable state of the world 
is most aptly described in the brief summary: 
‘The whole world lieth in the wicked one,” and the 
world itself, the doings and workings of the 
children of the world, their sayings, their deal- 
ings, their society, etc., are the best exposition of 
this passage. It is not so much matter of sur- 
prise that they are so wicked, as that they are 
not more wicked.— 

Hevusner:—A sin is not excusable, because it 
is not yet asin unto death. A pardonable sin 
may become a sin unto death; therefore we 
should abhor every sin.—The wicked one will 
not touch him: 1. The power of Satan is not 
irresistible; 2. The Christian, while he continues 


in a state of regeneration, is proof against all 
the assaults of Satan.—Fine threads are often 
more dangerous than coarse chains.—Fatth in the 
Son of God. 1. A holy, blissful, assured faith :-- 
a. as to its substance: in the Image of God, in 
the Saviour of love; ὃ. as to its ground: in the 
testimony of God; c. as to its effects: eternal 
life. IL It isa faith possible unto all: a. pro- 
vided they diligently read and lay to heart what 
is written, in order to attain unto faith; ὁ. pro- 
vided they pray God with child-like trust, to give 


unto them the true faith.— 


Brsser:—A singular saying! They believe, 
and he writes that they may believe. What need 
is there of an exhortation to believe, if we believe 
already? (Luther). It is not possible to have 
to-day’s life through yesterday’s faith. Here no 
stand-still is allowed; he that believes, let him 
go on believing.—After every prayer of achild 
of God, the Father hears the expressed or unex- 
pressed petition: Thy will be done.—I have read 
of a pious Christian who was in the habit of 
keeping a record of his daily prayers and inter- 
cessions that he invariably concluded his daily 
record with the passage 1 Jno. v. 15.—Sin is to 


the children of God like a robber, against whom 
they defend themselves all their life long. As a 


sentry stands before a king’s palace, so there 


stands a sentry with shield and sword before the 
habitation of God in the heart of His children.— 


The Epistle of St. John itself is such a preserva- 
tive. 

[Ezexren Hopkins :—God’s will, in bestowing 
a desired mercy upon us, is best known by the 
promises that He hath made to us. Which pro- 
mises are of two kinds: some refer to temporal 
blessings, and others refer to grace and glory. 

1. Grace and glory are promised absodutely. 
It is that, which we are commanded, all of us, to 
seek after: and, therefore, here we cannot mis- 
take, while we beg these; for there is no doubt 
while we pray for grace and glory, but that we 
do it according to the will of God. Here, we 
may be earnest and importunate, that God would 
sanctify and save our souls: and, while we ask 
this, and make this the matter of our requests, we 
are under an impossibility of asking amiss; yea, 
and the more violent we are, and the more reso- 
lute to take no denial at the hands of God, the 
more pleasing is this holy force, since it shows a 
perfect conformity and concurrence in our wills 
to His will, who hath told us, It is His will, 
“even,” our ‘sanctification: 1 Thess. iv. 3. This 
was one part of that violence which our Saviour 
saith the kingdom of heaven suffered in the days 
of John the Baptist. It is an invasion that is 
acceptable to God, when we storm heaven by 
prayers and supplications, with strong cries and 
tears: when we plant against it unutterable 
sighs and groans, this is such a battery, that 
those eternal ramparts cannot hold out long 
against it. 

2. Though we may pray thus absolutely and 
with a holy boldness, for grace and glory, saying 
to God as Jacob to the angel that wrestled with 
him, I will not let thee go, until thou hast blessed 
me with spiritual blessings, in heavenly things, 


‘in Jesus Christ: yet, secondly, for the degrees of 


grace and for the comforts of the Holy Ghost, we 
must pray conditionally: if the Lord will. For 


178 


THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


0 _—_=E™X=” PIE EO ek eee ΄΄ἷἧἷἝἷἝἷἝἷἝἷἝἽἷἕὯἕ΄“ἷ΄ἷ΄Π΄Π΄Π΄Π΄Π΄ἷΠἷὅΠὖὅἧ  ΄΄΄΄΄ῤῤ΄ ὃ ὃἝὃ 


these things are not absolutely necessary, neither 
are they absolutely promised to us by God. Nei- 


ther any degree of grace, nor any consolation of 


the Spirit is absolutely promised to us. But, 
however, our prayers ought to be so much the 
more fervent and importunate for these things, 
than for outward, temporal things; by how 
much more these are of far greater concern than 
the other. 

8. To pray for outward and worldly blessings 
is not contrary to the will of God, for He hath 
promised to bestow them.—But then, as His pro- 
mise is conditional, if it is consistent with our 
good: so, truly, must our prayers be conditional, 
that God would give them to us, if it is consistent 
with His will and with our good. Whatsoever 
we thus ask, we do it according to the will of 
God; and we are sure of speeding in our request, 
either by obtaining our desires, or by being 
blessed with a denial. For, alas, we are blind 
and ignorant creatures, and cannot look into the 
designs and drift of Providence, and see how God 
hath laid in order good and evil in His own pur- 
pose: oftentimes, we mistake evil for good, be- 
cause of the present appearance of good that it 
hath; yea, so short-sighted are we, that we can 
look no farther than outward and present appear- 
ance. But God, who sees the whole series and 
connection of his own counsels, knows, many 
times, that those things, which we account and 
desire as good, are really evil: and therefore it 
is our wisdom, to resign all our desires to His 
disposal, and to say, ‘‘ Lord, though such tempo- 
ral enjoyments may seem good and desirable to 
me at present, yet Thou art infinitely wise, and 
Thou knowest what the consequence and issue of 
them will be: I beg them, if they may stand with 
Thy will; and if Thou seest they will be as really 
good to me, as I suppose them now to be. If 
they be not so, I beg the favour of a denial.” 
This is the right frame, in which a Christian’s 
heart should be when he comes to beg tem- 
poral mercies of God; and, whilst he thus asks 
any worldly comforts, he cannot ask amiss. 
It was an excellent saying of the Satirist, ‘‘ We 
ask those things of God which please our present 
humors and desires: but God gives those things 
which are best and fittest for us: for we are 
dearer to Him,”’ saith the heathen, ‘‘than we are 
to ourselves.” <‘‘And,”’ says another, very well, 
“Tt is mercy in God, not to hear us, when we ask 
things that are evil:’’ and when He refuseth us 
in such requests, it is that He might not circum- 
vent us in our own prayers; for, indeed, whilst 
we ask rashly and intemperately, whatever we 
foolishly set our hearts upon, God need take no 
other course to plague and punish us, than by 
hearing and answering us.’’—M. ]. 

[Br. Ηλι: v. 16:—“If any man see his bro- 
ther fall into and continue in such a sin as may 
be capable of forgiveness, let him earnestly sue 
unto God for pardon of that offender: and God, 
who is great and infinite in mercy, shall gra- 
ciously incline His ear unto his prayers, and give 
remission and life to such an one. There is in- 
deed a sin unto death, for which there is no for- 
giveness with God, because there is no capacity 
of repentance for it in the committer of it; I 
mean the Sin against the Holy Ghost; when a 
man having received the knowledge of the Gospel 


by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and pro- 
fessed the belief thereof, shallin a devilish malice 
wilfully blaspheme and persecute that known 
truth.””—M. ]. 

[Jortin :—‘‘ What makes sin exceedingly sin- 
ful and most provoking, is a determined insolence 
and an obstinate impenitency, a guilt without re- 
morse, and without relenting, without shame and 
without fear. This is what appears most odious 
and offensive in the sight of God, as also in the 
sight of man; and to this incorrigible temper, 
and abandoned behaviour, indignation and wrath 
are denounced by Him, who will by no means ac- 
quit those that are guilty in thisway. ‘There is 
a sin unto death,” saith St. John, “and there is 
asin not unto death.” The sin unto death, of 
which the Apostle speaks, was in some manner 
peculiar to those times. It was an apostasy from 
Christianity, and these apostates were persons 
who had seen the miraculous proofs of its truth, 
and had themselves been partakers of some extra- 
ordinary gifts. When such persons renounced 
Christ, and fell away from the Church, it was 
plain that nothing more could be done to amend 
and reclaim them. And even now it is possible, 
that sinners may offend so long and so heinously 
as at last to provoke God, either to take them out 
of the world by a secret judgment, and so it isa 
sin unto temporal death; or to give them up to 
their own hard hearts, and so it becomes a sin 
unto spiritual death. But let an observation be 
added, which may be necessary to quiet melan- 
choly and desponding minds; and it is this: If 
any one be afraid that he is in such a condition, 
this very fear shows that in all probability he is 
not in such a condition; because it is usual for 
such sinners to have no consideration, no shame, 
no remorse, and no fear at all.” —M.]. 

[ΕΖΕΚΤΕΙ, Hopxins :—< Beware therefore, then, 
that you do not entertain any slight thought of 
sin: nor think, with the Papists, that there are 
some sorts of sins, that do not deserve death; 
which they call venial sins, in opposition to other 
more gross and heinous sins, which they allow to 
be mortal. Believe it, the least prick at the heart 
is deadly; and so is tke least sin to the soul. 
And, indeed, it is a contradiction, to call any sin 
venial in their sense, who hold it is not worthy 
of damnation, for the wages of sin is death; if it be 
not, how is it venial?”—M. 1. 

[ΒΙΕΘΡᾺ : on vy. 21:—* Those whowere called to 
the light of God, readily knew that an ido/ is no- 
thing in the world, and that idolatry and idol- 
worship are abominable. But there were at 
that time temptations which did not render su- 
perfluous this concluding admonition. They 
might be invited to idol-sacrifices and thus be 
drawn into a sort of communion with idols, Rey. 
ii. 20; 2 Cor. vi. 16. Sometimes, in order to 
escape bitter persecution, Christians might ven- 
ture to go too far. Yes, notwithstanding idols 
have at this present time sunk into still greater 
contempt, there yet arises always something 
which injuriously affects the knowledge of God 
in Christ Jesus, or the worship of God in spirit 
and in truth, which tries to find out some other 
way to God than by Christ, and to seek accept- 
ance with God in another seryice than in His 
Son. It becomes therefore every one who is of 
the truth to sigh, O God, keep me in the mind, 


CHAP. V. 13-21 179 


which Thou hast given me of Thy Son, and in| Ver. 16. Liaurroot, Joun. Asin unto death. 
which thou hast strengthened me by this testi- | Sermons; Works, 6, 331. 
mony of St. John! Amen.”—M]. CHALMERS, T. The nature of the sin unto 

[Sermons and Sermon Themes. death. Sermon: Works, 9, 225. 

Ver. 13. If we must aim at assurance, what VVer. 16, 17. Benson, G. Concerning a sin 
should they do who are not able to discern their | unto death, and a sin not unto death. A Para- 
own spiritual condition? Tuomas Doo.irTLEe.| phrase, etc. 2, 647.—M.]. 

Morn. Exere. I. 252. 


wl 


THE 


Ee RNY ewe 


SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES GENERAL OF JOHN. 


INTRODUCTION. 


¢1. CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLES. 


1, Tux Second Epistle, after the Address and Salutation (vv. 1-3), expresses the Apostle’s 
joy on finding the children of the κυρία walk in the truth of the Gospel (v. 4), a monition of the 
commandment of brotherly love (vv. 5, 6), not without a solemn warning against the doctrine 
of the false teachers, who confess not the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh (vv. 7-9), and 
against fellowship with them (vy. 10,11). Disinclined to write, and in the hope of early oral 
intercourse, the Epistle concludes with greetings of the sister’s children (vv. 12, 18). 

2. The Third Epistle, addressed to Caius (vy. 1), after a salutation, importing his wish for 
the prosperity of Caius, expresses the Apostle’s joy over his walking in the truth (vv. 2-4), 
commends his hospitality to missionary brethren (vv. 5-8), deplores the opposition they have to 
encounter at the hands of the ambitious Diotrephes, notwithstanding his Epistle of commenda- 
tion, and the readiness of the Church to comply therewith, with an intimation of his intention to 
take a personal stand against him (vv..9, 10), warns against his example and commends 
Demetrius, the probable bearer of the Epistle (vv.11,12). Disinclined to write, and in the 
hope of a speedy meeting, the Epistle concludes with greetings from the Apostle and friends 
to friends (vv. 13-15). 


82. CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLES, 


1, These two brief Epistles, besides which reference is made to a similar Epistle, which has 
been lost (3 Jno. 9), are two instructive monuments of the Apostle’s mode of dealing with indi- 
viduals. Ewald justly observes that these Epistles lack the rich flow and fusion of language 
found in a similar Epistle addressed by Paul to Philemon, but unmistakeably evince a loftier 
assurance, and with all their gentleness and affability, a brevity and earnestness which point to 
an Apostle little disposed to write much, and greatly preferring oral dealings and instruction. 

2. While the Second Epistle exhibits in forcible energy the most lively joy in his converts’ 
walking in the truth coupled with the most tender solicitude for them with respect to the false 
teachers, and warns them in the most decided terms against intimate intercourse with them, the 
Third Epistle exhibits the same joy, coupled with a reference to the aiding sympathy with mis- 
sionary brethren as the inviolable duty of individuals and the Church, and censures, threatens 
and entreats with great power. 

3. The two Epistles exhibit a remarkable similarity. The beginning of 2 Jno. 1 is precisely 
like that of 3 Jno. 1 (ὁ πρεσβύτερος---ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ); 2 Jno. 4 and 3 John 3 (ἐχάρην λίαν); par- 
ticularly the conclusion 2 Jno. 12 (πολλὰ ἔχων---οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος ---ἀλλὰ ἐλπίζω 
-- στόμα πρὸς στόμα λαλῆσαι), and 3 Jno. 18, 14 (πολλὰ elyov—ov ϑέλω διὰ μέλανος καὶ καλάμου---ἐλπίζω 
δὲ---στόμα πρὸς στόμα Aadfjoouev).—These Epistles, which resemble each other like twin sisters 


3 4. READERS OF THE EPISTLES. 181 
NO ... Ὁ- 
(Diisterdieck after Hieronymus, Zp. 85), must have been written by one and the same author. 
This is the opinion of those who ascribe their authorship to the Apostle St. John, of Ebrard, who 
ascribes them to the Presbyter John, and of Baur, who regards them as writings of Montanistic 
origin. 

23. OCCASION AND SCOPE OF THE EPISTLES. 

1. Although similar in plan and form, they are different as to their objects and tendency.— 
From his acquaintance with some of the children of the «pia, who were stanch Christians, the 
author of the Second Epistle took occasion to express his joy to their mother, who, as Dusterdieck, 
and probably correctly, supposes, had been known and endeared to him for some time, and to 
make known to her his paternal sympathy and encouragement, coupled, in particular, with a 
warning against false teachers and fellowship with them, who might prove especially dangerous 
to a Christian lady, for the purpose that her joy might be full (v. 12) and remain undisturbed; 
the announcement of his visit does not seem to belong to the real scope of the Epistle, (Diister- 
dieck).—The Author of the Third Epistle has been informed by missionary brethren that owing 
to the ambitious and domineering attitude of Diotrephes, who had also maligned the author 

eof the Epistle for his interest on behalf of said missionaries, these had not been perma- 
nently received in the Church, with which Caius was connected, and had been compelled to 
move on, notwithstanding the hospitality of Caius and several other church-members similarly 
disposed. On ve account the author of the Epistle gives notice of his coming in a short time, 
with a view to removing such disunion and disorder and to encouraging Caius to fearless care of 
the brethren. 

2. In view of these simple, unequivocal relations, Baur, the head of the Tubingen School, 
describes the situation in a truly marvellous manner, with shocking arbitrariness. On the 
ground of the passage from Clement of Alexandria, cited below in 25, Baur maintains that ἐκλεκτῇ 
is the Church, which is holy, and that the Montanists portray the ecclesca or Sponsa Christi vera, 
pudica, sancta; that the allegorical term Babylonia refers to Rome, asin 1 Peter v. 13; that 
opinions were divided in respect of Montanism ; that one party led by Diotrephes, had denied 
church-fellowship to the Church with which the author of the Epistle was connected, but that 
the other party was on terms of amity and union with said Church, that this second Epistle was 
addressed to the Montanistic party of the Church at Rome; that Diotrephes is not a real name, 
but a symbolical designation of the Roman bishop, yet not of Victor (193-202), as assumed by 
Schwegler (Montanism p. 284), because Ireneus and Clement of Alexandria were already 
acquainted with these Epistles, but perhaps of Anicetus (157-168), Soter or Eleutheros (to 193) ; 
that due consideration should be given to the partisan spirtt of the author of the Epistle, which 
made him designate the followers of Diotrephes as heathens (3 Jno. 7); that the Second Epistle 
was addressed to the Church to which Caius belonged, and that the Epistle, alluded to at 3 Jno. 
9, was written to Caius—Baur bases all this on the notice of Clement of Alexandria that the 
Second Epistle was written by the Apostle St. John, and Diotrephes (Διοτρεφής), one nourished and 
brought up by Jews, is said to be the symbolical designation of an orthodox bishop at Rome. 
A Montanist is named as the author of these Epistles, which contain no Montanistic views and 
are not even referred to by Tertullian, the Montanist!—Hilgenfeld regards the Second Epistle as 
an excommunicatory writing, designed to be the official expression of an Apostolical sentence 
of repudiation directed against fellowship with the Gnostic false teachers, and the Third Epistle 
as an ἐπιστολὴ συστατική emanating from the Church of John, for the purpose of vindicating the 
right of that Church to issue such Epistles of commendation, which the Jewish Christians con- 
sidered to be the prerogative of their venerated James, the author of the Epistle having recog- 
nized the utility of such an ordered passport-system during the Gnostic storms and commo- 
tions; cf. Huther, p. 253, sqq. 


24. READERS OF THE EPISTLES. 
On the κυρία see notes on 2 Jno. 1, and on Caius, notes on 3 Jno. 1 in Exegetical and Criti- 
cal.—Very curious is the view of Ewald, who supposes that the two Epistles were sent to one 
Church, namely, the Second Epistle addressed to the elect glorious one, to the Church; but because 


182 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES GENERAL OF JOHN. 


it might be feared that Diotrephes the elder, through whose hands the Epistle had to pass, would 
prevent its being publicly read at Church, the Third Epistle was on that account addressed to 
another well-disposed elder, viz., Caius, of the same Church. The poor support which this view 
derives from 3 Jno. 9 is evident and shown in the Exegesis on that passage. He further alleges 
that the great stress of the times induced John to omit the name of the Church, which must have 
been one of considerable importance, because three of its elders, viz., Diotrephes, Caius, Deme- 
trius, are mentioned. Pure conjectures! 


25. THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLES. 


1. History answers the question, ‘Who is the author of these Epistles?’ in the following par- 
ticulars: The oldest testimony for these Epistles is that of the Muratorian Canon of the New 
Testament which was composed until about A. 1). 170 (as stated in the Introduction to the first 
Epistle 2 3, 1. p. 4.), and makes mention of the First and Second Epistles. From the excellent 
essay of Wieseler, referred to there, we have still to supply an observation on the Pauline Epis- 
tles to Philemon, Titus and Timothy. In said Canon we read (p. 828): Verwm ad Philemonem 
una, et ad Timotheum due pro affectu et dilectione, in honorem tamen ecclesice catholice, in ordi- 
natione ecclesiastice discipline sanctificate sunt.— The Epistle to Philemon probably followed 
immediately after the Epistles addressed to Churches, because it was addressed not only to Phi- 
lemon, but also to Apphia and Archippus and to the Church in Philemon’s house (vy. 2), and be- 
cause the Apostolical salutation and benediction had also reference to them (v#. 3,25). It con- 
stituted, therefore, a sort of transition to the Epistles addressed to individuals only, viz., to those 
to Titus and Timothy. Yet the circumstance, that such a distinction was really drawn in the 
Christian Church between Epistles addressed to individuals, and Epistles addressed to whole 
Churches, and that our author deemed it necessary, in the words beginning with pro affectu et 
dilectione, to justify the grounds on which the Epistles to Titus and Timothy were notwith- 
standing received into the Ecclesiastical Canon,—has a most important bearing on the history 
of the Canon.” (Wieseler, 1. ο. p. 839). Hence it can neither be thought singular, nor subject to 
doubt, that, while the Second Epistle, because of its more instructive character and because the 
term κυρία was supposed to refer to a Church and not to an individual person, was received along 
with the First Epistle into the Canon, the Third Epistle, addressed to an unknown personage and 
without the intrinsic weight of the Pauline Pastoral Epistles, was not received into the Canon ; 
but this of course does not deny its Johannean origin, still this is the way how it came to be 
reckoned among the Antilegomena. The additional clause: “wt sapzentia ab amicis Salomonis 
in honorem tpsius scripta,” does not belong to the words preceding them which refer to the 
Epistle of John, but to those following: “apocalypsis etiam Johannis.” The latter, therefore, 
is said to have been composed by the friend of John, not by himself, but this is not asserted con- 
cerning the Epistles, as many, because of the false connection with the words preceding said 
clause, would like to maintain (Wieseler, 1. c. p. 846 sq.). Hence Dusterdieck’s use of the Mura- 
torian Canon (II. p. 464 sq.), and also Huther’s (p. 248 sq.), require to be rectified in this re- 
spect.—Clement of Alexandria, the successor of Pantenus A. 1). 190-220: “Secunda Johannis 
epistola, que ad virgines scripta est, simplicissima est; scripta vero est ad quandam 
Babyloniam Electam nomine, significat autem electionem ecclesie sancte.” (Opp. ed. 
Potter p. 1011). Origen, who says in his eighth homily on Joshua: “addzt et Joannes 
tuba canere per EPISTOLAS suas,” knew several Epistles; but he says according to Euseb. 
Hist. Eccl., V1.25: ov πάντες φασὶ γνησίους εἶναι rabrac.—Dionysius of Alexander, the disciple and 
successor of Origen A. D. 233, from A. D. 248 bishop, for the purpose of illustrating the Johan- 
nean diction makes use also of the Second and Third Epistles, takes accordingly no offence in the 
appellation: ὁ πρεσβύτερος, and calling the Second and Third Epistles φερομένη ᾿Ιωάννου, designated 
them as generally received as Johannean, by tradition.—Ireneus, the disciple of Polycarp and 
Papias, ¢ A. D. 202, cites 2 Jno. 7 mistakenly, as Guericke says (p. 478), owing to an error of 
memory, as forming part of the First Epistle (adv. Her. III. 16. 8), but still as from the Epistles 
of John; he cites, however, correctly 2 Jno. 11 (adv. Her. I. 163), as from the Epistle of John 
(Ἰωάννης δὲ, ὁ τοῦ Κυρίου μαθητής.) ----Τὐ is of course natural, that these two private Epistles were 
not translated in the earliest age of the Church, and consequently not inserted in the Peschito, 


25. THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLES. 183 
CE NSE I es 2 ES CA Sa a ΞΞΑΣ ἐς ἐξ τς ςτὸ τες 
which contains only three Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, 1 John), although Ephrem the Sy- 
rian knew both Epistles,—ana that citations from them are more rare occurrences, so that Ter- 
tullian and Cyprian do not make mention of them. Although Cyprian did not cite them in his 
own writings, he still says in relating (De Her. bapt.) the opinions of the various bishops in the 
council of Carthage: “Aureléus a Chullabi diait; Joannes Apostolus im eprstola sua posuts 
dicens, si quis ad vos venit,” etc. 2 Jno. 10; [thus clearly showing that this Epistle was re- 
ceived as Apostolical and Canonical in the North African Church.—M.]. On that account Euse- 
bius (Hist. Eccles. III. 25) reckons the two Epistles among the antilegomena of the first class 
[still Eusebius’s own opinion may be gathered from his Demonstratio Evangelica, III. 5, where 
he says of St. John ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ μνήμηϊξ τῆς οἰκείας προσηγορίας ποιεῖται, ἢ πρεσ- 
βύτερον ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζει, οὐδαμοῦ δὲ ἀποστόλον οὐδὲ εὐαγγελιστῆν͵ whence it would appear that he re- 
ceived the two smaller Epistles as genuine.” Alford—M.]. Jerome (de vir. tllustr. c. 9): “Scrip- 
sit autem Johannes et unam epistolam—qu ab universis ecclesiasticis et eruditis Viris proba- 
tur: relique autem due quarum principium Suntor Johannis Presbyteri asseruntur.” But 
he calls (cap. 18) this view “opinio, quam a plerisque retulimus traditam,” and Oecumenius 
and Bede decidedly reject this view—The Epistles, after having been regarded without any 
doubt as Johannean in the Middle Ages, were first referred to the authorship of John the. Pres- 
byter by Erasmus, who was followed by Grotius, J. D. Beck (observ. crit. exeget. specim. L.), 
Fritzsche (Observations on the Epistles of John in Henke’s Museum, vol. 3, 1), Ammon (Life 
of Jesus I. p. 45 sy.), and especially Ebrard. Almost all the modern commentators (Lucke, de 
Wette, Brickner, Diisterdieck, Huther) receive them as Johannean Epistles. The Tubingen 
school disputes their Apostolical origin and considers them, according to the opinion of its leader, 
as writings of Montanistic origin; but Hilgenfeld, at least, makes them originate in the subapos- 
tolic age (cf. 3). 

2. The result of the examination of the most ancient documents respecting the author of 
these two Epistles, which requires us to regard them as the writings of the Apostle St. John, is 
confirmed by the writings themselves.—The first point to be considered here is the term ὁ zpeo- 
Birepoc. Here the author observes an incognito to all persons except those to whom he wrote, 
and who knew, of course, who this presbyter was. It surely was not his intention to write 
anonymously, because he addresses private individuals in clear and definite terms, and apprizes 
them of his coming to see them. The expression in question describes a superior position in 
general terms and in language reflecting a friendly and affectionate disposition. This is precisely 
St. John’s manner both in the First Epistle and in the Gospel; he thus describes himself, that 
only those whom it concerns, may recognize him. Bede and Oecumenius leave it undecided 
whether the Apostle called himself ὁ πρεσβύτερος on account of his age or on account of his office; 
had he used said appellation on account of his advanced years, he ought to have put either 
ὁ πρεσβύτης, or 6 γέρων. Hence Piscator, Er., Schmidt, Wolf, Carpzov, Sander and al., [who take 
this view—M.], are mistaken. The official sense of that appellation is advocated by N. de Lyra, 
Bartholomzus Petrus (= Zpiscopus, totius Aste primus), a Lapide, Beza, Licke, Huther, Duster- 
dieck and others. Of. 1 Pet. v.1: συμπρεσβίτερος, and Eusebius, Ast. Hecl., 111., 39, where the 
Apostles are cailed πρεσβύτεροι. John might have called himself ὁ ἀπόστολος, ὁ ἐπίσκοπος: but he 
prefers thus to moderate his privileged position. Ewald assumes that it was also on account of 
the stress of the times that he omitted to give his own name, as well as that of the Church to 
which he sent the second Epistle (see above in ᾧ 4). Diisterdieck combines the official reference 
of this appellation with a reference to age, the then advanced years of the Apostle presupposing 
the years during which he had held converse with the Lord Himself; so also Aretius, Guericke, 
(Gesammitgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, 1854, p. 485, sq.), Benson and others. But seeing 
that there did exist, according to the testimony of Papias in Eusebius, Hst. Hecl., IIL, 39, a 
person different from the Apostle, called John the Presbyter, who was called ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου͵ 
it has been thought, especially on the above-cited testimony of Irenzeus, that this latter was the 
author of these Epistles. This opinion is strenuously advocated by Ebrard. But in that case 
the name ought not to be wanting, as Liicke, Dusterdieck and Huther, rightly and emphatically 
contend; for it cannot be proved that said personage bore that name kar’ ἐξοχὴν," especially since 


184 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES GENERAL OF JOHN. 

spr a ee 6. Ὁ τὸ i ge ee ee ee νάσσατο 
the diction of the Epistles clearly points to the Apostle—The second point relates to the impress 
of Johannean diction and thought left on our Epistles. Compare only the following expressions : 
2 Jno. 1: ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν, v. 2: μένειν ἐν, v. 8: ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ, v. 4: περιπατεῖν ἐν, v. 
5: ἐντολὴν---καινή, ἣν εἴχομεν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς (1 Ino. ii. 7), v. 6: αὔτη---ἶνα (1 Jno. iii. 11, 23; v. 8), καθὼς 
ἠκούσατε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, V. 7: πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον (1 Ino. ii. 18, 8q.), οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Τησοῦν χριστὸν ἐρ χόμενον 
ἐν σαρκί (1 Jno. iv. 1, 2), ὁ ἀντίχριστος, v. 9: μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ, ϑεὸν οὐκ ἔχει (1 Jno. ii. 28), καὶ τὸν 
υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, V. 12: ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν ἡ πεπληρωμένη (1 Ino. i. 4), 8 5πο. 1: ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, vv. 
8, 4, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ περιπατεῖς, v.11: ἐκ τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐστίν, οὐχ ἑώρακεν τὸν ϑεὸν (1 Jno. iii. 6, 10; iv. 8). 
The connection of thesis and antithesis, without simple antithesis, leading to a progression in the 
thought, occurs at 2 Jno. 9; 3 Jno. l& How freely is carried out the theme of 2 Jno. 3: ἐν 
ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ, and then vy. 4-11. Do we not identify the independent position of the author 
by the ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί (2 Jno. 7), as compared with the Perfect (1 Jno. iv. 2), and the Aorist 
(1 Jno. v. 6), and his free, easy handling of his subject. This independence is recognizable in the 
salutation, perfectly analogous to that in the pastoral Epistles of Paul, by the ἔσται pe? ὑμῶν 
being placed first, and then by the παρά following, instead of which Paul uses ἀπὸ (see note on 
the passage), and the omission of ἡμῶν, supplied by Paul. On this, as well as on the severity, 
alleged to be bordering on lovelessness in 2 Jno. 10, compare the notes below, in Exegetical and 
Critical—After what has been said, we can neither refer, with de Wette, to ei τις (2 Jno. 10) 
instead of ἐάν τις, διδαχὴν φέρειν (ἰδίά.), περιπατεῖν κατὰ (vy. 6), κοινωνεῖν (vy. 11), μειζότερος (3 Jno. 4), 
τὸ κακόν, τὸ ἀγαθὸν, as proofs against the Johannean origin of the Epistle, nor characterize, with 
the same intent, with Fritzsche, as Pauline the following expressions: ὑγεαίνειν, εὐοδοῦσθαι (8 
Jno. 2), προπέμπειν ἀξίως τοῦ ϑεοῦ (v. 6), φιλοπρωτεύειν (v. 9), φλυαρεῖν (v. 10), especially since the 
expressions used in 3 Jno. 6, 9, 10, are not found either in the writings of Paul. It is moreover 
rather hazardous to prove such things from single and isolated words, especially here, since the 
matters introduced in the Third Epistle are altogether specific, and do not bear the faintest 
resemblance to the circumstances, relations and subjects discussed in the First Epistle; such a 
disparity, of course, involves the use of different expressions. Ebrard’s attempt also, to prove 
that the Third Epistle, as being most unlike the First, and the Second Epistle nearly related to 
the Third, were not written by the Apostle St. John, but by John the Presbyter, is a failure. 
He discovers in the passages used, allusions, intentional reminiscences, and actually citations, 
and acknowledges the Author’s independence neither in the passages given above, nor “in the 
striking circumstance” that he uses at 2 Jno. 10, εἴ τις instead of ἐάν τις, and that “at 3 Jno. 11 
he reproduces Johannean forms of thought, in wholly unjohannean language.” Even Ebrard is 
compelled to admit the similarity of the Second Epistle to the First, both as to the identity of the 
doctrine taught, and the form of its expression —Under these circumstances it seems impossible 
to deny the Apostolic and Johannean origin of these Epistles. They were both written by one 
and the same author, by an independent man, and the Second Epistle necessitates us to go back 
to the author of the First, while there is at least nothing in the Third to prevent such a mode of 
procedure. 


26. DATE OF THE EPISTLES. 


One thing is clear: the two Epistles were written at about the same time. It cannot be 
inferred from the affinity of theSecond Epistle with the First, that the former was composed after 
the latter, as Ebrard alleges, since only the identity of the Authors is established, but not 
the use of the First in theSecond. Nor can any inferences be drawn from the First Epistle not 
being mentioned (8. G. Lange), from the more vigorous spirit of the Second Epistle (Eichhorn), 
from the youthful fire in the rigoristic saying at 2 Jno. 10, 11. (Knauer).—But they were pro- 
bably written about the same time as the First, since the circumstances of the times are probably 
identical in all three Epistles. 


ὁ 1. PLACE WHERE THEY WERE WRITTEN. 


Probability points to Ephesus, as the place where they were written, before a tour of visita- 
tion (Eusebius, Hist. Ecel., ΠῚ, 23; Licke, Huther, Diisterdieck). 


————— 


4. 8. LITERATURE. 185 
ἘΞ ΘΠ a es 


28. LITERATURE, 

See Introduction to the first Epistle. 8 10. Also the following: 

J. Somme ius, Isagoge in 2 et ὃ Joh. Ep. Land. 1798, 

J. RamBonneEt, De sec. ep. Johannea, Traj. 1818. 

C. A. Heumann, Commentar iiber den dritten Brief des Johannes, Helmstiidt. 1778. 

[AvausTINE MARLORATE, 4to. 1588. 

WiuiamM Jonzs, on the Second and Third Epistles of John, in the Commentary on Phile- 
mon, ete. Folio. London, 1635, 

SAMUEL SmitH, Exposition of the Second Epistle of St, John. 1663. 

F. D. Maurice, on the 2d and 3d Epistles of St. John. Truth in the woman and the man. 
Epistles of St. John, 316, 

J. B. Carnpzovius, Commentatioin Epistolam, 2 Joannis de charitate et veritate; in Joan- 
nis Epistolam tertiam brevis enarratio. T, Rapolti Opera. 4to. Lips. 1693—M.}. 


COMMENTARY. 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN THE APOSTLE. 


(Ἰωάννου 8. B. Cod. Sin. 
ϑολιχή. Several have after Ἰωάννου: 
ϑεολόγου). 


Several codices add ἐπιστολή, and others ἐπιστολή χα- 
τοῦ ἐπὶ στηϑοῦς, G: τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου---τοῦ 


I. THE ADDRESS (vv. 1-3). 


The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom 1 love in the truth;! and? 
not I only, but also all they that have known the truth; for the truth’s sake, 


which dwelleth in us,’ and shall be with us for ever. 


Grace be* with you,’ mercy, 


and peace from God the Father, and from® the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the 


Father, in truth and love. 


Verse 1. [1 German: “,Whom I love in truth.” So Alford, Lillie.—M.]. 


+3 οὐκ ἐγὼ 


2B. Cod. Sin.: καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ; 


δὲ; α: καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ δὲ. [The reading of A. may have 


arisen from a desire to mark the antithesis more strongly.—M. 


Verse 2, 
dently an interpretation. 
Verse 3. [*German: “There shall be with you.”—M.] 


ὃμένουσαν is the reading of B. Sin. and most and the best codd. A. reads ἐνοικοῦσαν, but is evi- 
(German: “which abideth in us.”—M.] 


5 A. omits ἔσται μεθ᾽ Vuh av—evidently by a mistake, occasioned by the conclusion of y.2. B.G. Sin. 


read ἡ μῶν which is also occasioned by v. 2. 


5 5 


6 6. K. Sin. insert before Ἰησοῦ the word κυρίου; this addition, as γ7611 as the exchange of the pre- 
position παρ ἃ for ἁ π ὃ are probably transcribed from the beginnings of the Pauline Epistles. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


The address proper. V.1. The elder, ὁ πρεσ- 
βύτερος; the definite Article notes a person, the 
word without the Article would give prominence 
to his official position. That John the Apostle 
is meant we have endeavoured to prove in the 
Introduction 35. Thus Peter also calls himself, 
in an exhortation addressed to presbyters, συμ- 
πρεσβύτερος. (1 Pet. v. 1). 

To the elect lady, ἐκλεκτῃ κυρίᾳ; these words 
have been very differently explained. Gram- 
matically they present a perfect analogy to 1 
Pet. i. 1: ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις, to elect strang- 
ers; κυρίᾳ therefore cannot well be taken as a 
proper name, which would require as at vy. 13, 
and 8 Jno. 1: Ταΐῳ τῷ ἀγαπητῷ, ----κυρίᾳ τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ 
Cf. Phil. i. 2. Rom. xvi. 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 ete. 
To what purpose is it that κυρία was a female 
proper name, as may be seen in Gruteri inscript. 
p. 1127. N. xi., and that this was maintained 
by Athanasius, and later by Benson, Heumann, 
Bengel, Krigele (de κυρία Joannis, Lips. 1758). 
S. G. Lange, Carpzovius, Paulus, de Wette, 
Briickner, Liicke, Diisterdieck and others? Diister- 
dieck and Liicke notice a certain irregularity 
and inconsequence, which is not explained by 


But the difficulty is even greater in treating 
éxAekT# aS a proper name, as is done by de Lyra, 
Cappellus, Wetstein, Grotius and al. For the 
sister, v. 18, is also called éxAexr#7.—But how are 
we to take the elect lady? The context requires 
us to think of anindividual: the éyo of the writer 
answers to the σύ of the person addressed (vy. 1, 
4sq.); she as a mother with her children is 
mentioned (vy. 3, 6, 8, 10, 12); her sister and 
her sister’s children salute her (v. 13). Epictetus 
(cap. 62) observes that: αἱ γυναῖκες εὐθὺς ἀπὸ 
τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα ἐτῶν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν κυρίαι καλοῦν- 
ται. Huther is wrong in saying that the term 
κυρία does not answer to the German Frau [—the 
English Mistress, the word used to address mar- 
ried ladies—M.], but to the German Herrin [= 
the English Mistress or lady of the house—M.]; 
for Frau is the feminine of jro, the Master, 
(Frohndienst, Frohnveste, Fronleichnam), and Frau 
—Herrin (see Jiitting, Biblisches Worterbuch 1864, 
s. v. Frauenzimmer Ὁ. 61 and s.v. Frohnvogt p. 
65); nor need that author designate κυρία only 
as a polite form of address, nor Diisterdieck pro- 
nounce it a title only suited to worldly politeness. 
It may just as well be taken as the standing de- 
signation of an esteemed woman, and it is neither 
unworthy of a Christian, nor of an Apostle to call 


but consists in the adjective preceding thenoun,|a church-member, according to a prevailing 
as long as κυρία is treated as a nomen proprium.!|usage, “Frau” (lady or mistress)—=xvpia, so 


VERSES 1-3. 


187 


Luther, Piscator, Beza, Heidegger, Rittmeier, 
de electa domina, Helmst. 1706), Wolf, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Sander and al.; a Lapide re- 
ports her to have been called Drusia or Drus- 
jana. Carpzovyius supposes that Martha, the 
sister of Lazarus, is the personaddressed; Knauer 
(Studien und Kritiken, 1888, pp. 452-458), sug- 
gests Mary, the mother of the Lord—but all 
these views are wholly untenable. It is true, 
that unfortunately the name of the person ad- 
dressed is not given in the address, so that one 
might almost feel inclined to take κυρία as a pro- 
per name. But the name of the person addressed 
might be wanting just as well as that of the 
writer; the messenger may and probably did 
make up for such omission.—But the circum- 
stance that this “note” (Handbillet--Augusti) found 
its way among the Catholic Epistles, should not 
occasion any difficulty. Just as well as the third 
Epistle to Caius; it is no more unworthy of the 
Canon than St. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon; the 
individual, also a woman, is worthy of due re- 
gard and consideration; I confine myself to 
making mention of Priscilla (Acts xviii. 2, sq.; 
26, sq.; Rom. xvi. 8, sq.).—It is far more haz- 
ardous to understand κυρία to signify the Chris- 
tian Church in general, or some particular con- 
gregation; the former is recommended by Je- 
rome, the latter by the Scholiast I.; they are 
followed by Calov, Hofmann. ( Wetssagung und 
Lirfiillung I1., p. 321; Schriftbeweis, I., p. 226, sq.), 
Hilgenfeld, Huther and al. Serrarius guessed 
Corinth, Whiston argued for Philadelphia, Whit- 
by for Jerusalem, the mother of all Churches, 
and Augusti for Jerusalem, because founded by 
the Lord Himself, though such a ‘‘note” would 
certainly be less suited to a Church than to an 
individual church-member. Hammond has the 
curious notion that κυρία is=curia, ecclesia, 
and Micheelis, that it designates the Church as- 
sembled on the Lord’s day. But wholly un- 
founded, and devoid of all possibility of proof 
is the hypothesis of Besser and al., that κυρία is 
the ἐκκλησία to which 3 Jno. 9, was written, and 
that the 2d Epistle of John is the one there re- 
ferred to. Hofmann adverts to the Church being 
called νύμφη and γυνῇ in the Apocalypse, to 


ΠΟ and Προ, and to ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι 


συνεκλεκτή (1 Pet. v. 18). Huther also rightly 
observes in opposition to Ebrard, that the 
Church, which in respect of Christ is an obedient 
handmaid, may be considered both in her subor- 
dinate relation to Christ and in her superior re- 
lation to individual members, and as such be 
described as κυρία by the side of κύριος ; but that 
y. 12 requires us to understand a single congre- 
gation and not ‘all orthodox Christendom” (Hil- 
genfeld), and that our Epistle is not an Encyeli- 
cal. But in that case the address ought to have 
given the name of that congregation. Nor would 
ἐκλεκτῇ exactly suit kypia=éxkAnoia; for ἡ ἐν Βαβυ- 
λῶνι συνεκλεκτῇ is somewhat different, and, in 
juxtaposition with and as distinguished from 6 
Μάρκος, can hardly designate the Church in that 
place (see Fronmiiller on 1 Pet. νυ. 13, in this 
Commentary). The relation indicated at Gal. 
iv. 26: ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν, can hardly have 
been applied here to a single congregation, so 


that it might be called κυρία. After all that has 
been said, the choice lies between κυρία as a 
nomen proprium, or kvpia=lady. [Among recent 
English commentators, Alford takes the former 
view, while Wordsworth elaborates the interpre- 
tation, according to which κυρία is a Church.— 
M 


And her children (τοῖς τέκνοις) should be 
taken literally ; a family is always an important 
circle of men! But if κυρία is construed as a 
Church, the children designate Church-mem- 
bers. 

Further particulars. vy. 1, 2. 

Whom I love in truth.—Oic after τέκνα im- 
ports sons, but does not exclude daughters, the 
κυρία had sons and daughters, but more sons than 
daughters; hence it would have been improper to 
say τοῖς υἱοῖς, as Huther maintains, who, if κυρία 
designates a Church, refers to Gal. iv. 9 (rexvia 
μου---οὗς), Matth. xxviii. 19 (τὰ ἐθνη---οαὐτούς), 
passages which fully justify the given explana- 
tion, and prove that τέκνα need not be sons only 
(de Wette and al.); nor does οὗς refer to κυρία 
and her children (Beza, Bengel, Sander [al.]). 
᾿Εγώ emphatically asserts the Apostle’s personal 
relations to that family-congregation; that 
which makes that family-congregation the object 
of the Apostle’s love and of that of all believers, 
implies the reason of this Epistle and its import- 
ance. Though ἐν ἀληθεία along with ἀγαπῶ 
should be construed adverbially, yet it signifies 
more than: ‘in sincerity,” for it denotes also 
Christian love. Bengel: **Amor non modo verus 
amor, sed veritate evangelica nititur.’  Liicke: 
“‘It designates genuine Christian love.” Eb- 
rard: “I love thee with that love which is 
love in truth,” cf. i. Jno. iii. 18,19. The addi- 
tional clause has respect to objective truth (Diis- 
terdieck, Huther 2d ed.). 

And not I only, but also all who have 
known the truth.—Bengel pointedly observes: 
‘‘communio sanctorum.” He assumes in his own 
case, as well as in the ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, the 
ἐγνωκέναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. The term πάντες must not 
be restricted to Ephesus and its environs, the 
supposed place of writing (Grotius, de Wette 
and al.), but only to those who were acquainted 
with the κυρία and her children (Liicke), yet so 
that those, who afterwards might get acquainted 
with her, are included. The restriction lies not 
in the word itself, but in the situation (Ebrard).. 
It is not necessary to think here of only one 
Church (Huther).—The reason of this love is 
stated in 

Ver. 2. For the truth’s sake, which 
abideth in us.—'Hwiv designates the persons 
loving and beloved, (Huther) ; it must not be alto- 
gether construed in a general sense or applied, as 
if by implication, to the persons ‘specified in y. 
1 (Bede, Diisterdieck and al.). This is also the 
ground of the definition of ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ and 
of believers as of ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν (ay 
not as Huther maintains, in πλάνοι (v. 7 The 
common life-sphere is just ἡ ἀλήθεια, and moreover 
not only that which is objectively sure, but also 
that which subjectively is securely kept. In 
order to note the former point, the Apostle adds: 

And shall be with us forever.—The rea- 
son why the Participle, instead of being followed 
by a further participial sentence, is here followed 


188 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


by the Verb. finit., is the writer’s intention to give 
greater prominence to this thought. Winer, p. 
600. The Fature is not the expression of a wish, 
as Grotius, Liicke, Ebrard and others suppose, 
but the confident assertion of certain duration. 
Hence εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα must not be restricted to the 
duration of the life of the persons interested 
(Benson and others). Me’ ἡμῶν denotes the ob- 
jectivity of Divine truth as well as our subjec- 
tively developed activity. Cf. Jno. xiv. 16; 1 Jno. 
ii. 20, 27; especially Matth. xxviii. 20. Hence 
ἐν and μετὰ must not be taken as substantially 
equivalent (Winer, p. 430), since ἐν notes the 
subjective side, and μετὰ also the objective side. 

The greeting. v. 3. There shall be with 
you.—Singular, and proof that we have not to 
deal here with the imitation of a forger; who 
would have adhered to usual and current forms 
of expression, like the addition ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ 
ἀγάπῃ. here Future; it is qualified by the pre- 
ceding words with which it is connected. It is 
not=éorw, but votum cum affirmatione (Bengel) ; 
the certainty of the expectation excels the wish 
of the greeting. 

Grace, mercy, peace.—l. Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. 
i, 21 have also χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη.----Κάρις is free 
grace, which, without any merit on the part of 
man, lovingly condescends to men and denotes 
the thoughts of peace in the paternal heart of 
God, the mind of Him who is Love (Rom. iii. 24; 
Eph. ii. 4-10); ἔλεος describes the mercy. which 
energetically lays hold of, and enters into the 
misery of man (Luke x. 30-37), and denotes the 
act of love; εἰρήνη is the gift of love, the effect of 
χάρις and ἔλεος. [Trench, Synonyms of the New 
Testament, p. 225: ‘* Χάρις has reference to the 
sins of men, ἔλεος to their misery. God’s χάρις, 
His free grace and gift, is extended to men, as 
they are guilty, His ἔλεος is extended to them, as 
they are miserable. The lower creation may be, 
and is, the object of God’s ἔλεος, inasmuch as the 
burden of man’s curse has redounded also upon 
it (Job. xxxviii. 41; Ps. exlvii. 9; Jonah iv. 11), 
but of His χάρις man alone; he only needs, he 
only is capable of receiving it. Im the Divine 
mind, and in the order of our salvation as con- 
ceived therein, the ἔλεος precedes the χάρις. God 
so loved the world with a pitying love (herein was 
the ἔλεος) that He gave His only-begotten Son 
(herein the χάρις) that the world through Him 
might be saved: cf. Eph. ii. 14; Lukei. 78, 79. 
But in the order of the manifestation of God’s 
purposes of salvation the grace must go before 
the mercy, the χάρες must make way for the ἔλεος. 
It is true, that the same persons are the subjects 
of both, being at once the guilty and the misera- 
ble, yet the righteousness of God, which it is just 
as necessary should be maintained as His Love, 
demands that the guilt should be done away, be- 
fore the misery can be assuaged; only the for- 
given can, or indeed may, be made happy; 
whom He has pardoned, He heals; men are jus- 
tified before they are sanctified. Thus in each 
of the Apostolic salutations it is first χάρις and 
then ἔλεος, which the Apostle desires for the 
faithful (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. 1. 8; 2 Cor.i. 2; Gal. 
i. 8; Eph. i. 2; Phil. i. 2, etc.); nor could the 
order of the words be reversed.”’—M.].—This 
might be wanting soonest, since the χάρις of the 
Almighty, of course, cannot remain idle; see Tit. 


i. 4; Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 8; 2 Cor. i. 2; Gal. i. 
3; Eph. i. 2; Phil. i.2; Col. i. 2; 1 Thess. i.1; 
2 Thess. i. 2. But it is just χάρις which is omit- 
ted in Jude 2 (ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνῃ καὶ ἀγάπη 
πληθυνθείη), since these two, with respect to 
εἰρήνη, belong together. But the order is estab- 
lished. Bengel observes very well: ‘Graria 
tollit culpam, MISERICORDIA miseriam, PAX dicit 
permansionem in gratia est misericordia,”’ [ Alford: 
«ς Eipgvy is the whole sum and substance of the 
possession and enjoyment of God’s grace and 
mercy; cf. Luke ii, 14; Rom. v.1; x. 15; Jno. 
Σὶν, 2; πνῖ. oo. — «ἈΠ; 

From God the Father, and from Jesus 
Christ the Son of the Father.—The em- 
ployment of παρὰ instead of the ἀπὸ commonly 
used in the Pauline writings, points to the inde- 
pendence of our author; and so does the circum- 
stance that the pronoun ἡμῶν is omitted after 
πατρός. Thus, in this connection, God is to be 
taken primarily as the Father of Jesus Christ, 
especially since the words τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρός are 
annexed, and the Sonship is rendered peculiarly 
prominent, also since the preposition παρὰ is re- 
peated, as denoting the Divine nature and char- 
acter of the object desired by the Apostle, where- 
as ἀπὸ denotes only their procession from God; 
παρὰ designates them as the gifts of God, ἀπὸ as 
Divine gifts. Cf. Winer, 382 sq. Note should 
also be taken here of the independence of the 
Son by the side of the Father, as importing their 
equality. 

In truth and love.—Also a peculiar addi- 
tion; it belongs to ἔσται μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, the preposition 
év denoting the two life-elements (Huther) of 
believers, in which the Divine exhibitions of 
grace, mercy and peace have to be received and 
enjoyed (Diisterdieck); these words contain also 
a reference to the contents of the Epistle (Ben- 
gel, Ebrard). Hence it is wrong to join ἐν 
ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ with τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς, as if it 
were—filio verissimo et dilectissimo (Barth. Petrus), 
or to explain wt perseveretis vel ut crescatis (a La- 
pide), or like Grotius: per cognitionem veri et dilec- 
tionem mutuam, nam per haec in nos Dei beneficia 
provocamus, conservamus, augemus; for ἐν is not—= 
per, and our conduct is not the reason of the 
χάρις etc. (Huther). 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. God is primarily the Father of Jesus Christ, 
and Christ the Son of God, and it is not until we 
are in Christ, that he is our Father, and we are 
His children. 

2. By the side of the Personality of the Father 
the Personality of the Son is a fundamental 
view. 

3. The grace of God is the ground of our 
peace. 

4, Our peace is the end and aim of the Divine 
grace and mercy. 

5. All true love rests upon the truth of revela- 
tion. 

6. Love with its all-embracing power is co- 
extensive with truth. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Love is truth, and truth is love!—Truth and 
love are the fundamental elements of the Chris: 


VERSES 4-11. 


189 


tian life. Peace is really nothing but the health 
of the soul. 

Srarke: In Christ there is neither male nor 
female.—Caution is needed, not to call any man 
elect, of whose true and firm faith we are not 
sufficiently convinced.—The abuse of titles should 
be abolished; but their right use should be pre- 
served; honour to whom honour is due!—What! 
each and every person are not to be allowed to 
read the Holy Scriptures? and yet the Holy 
Spirit caused a special Epistle to be written to a 
pious matron and her children!—Preachers 
ought to pasture sheep and lambs, to teach great 
and small, in various ways, the ways of the Lord. 
—It is a rare example to meet a whole family of 
pious people.—A hireling loves the sheep for the 
sake of their fleece; but a true shepherd only for 
the truth’s sake, because of God and with self- 
denial.—Truth is beautiful as such; but itis un- 
profitable, if it is not, and does not remain, in 
us.—Truth holds out longest.—Truth is founded 
on God, it has consequently an eternal root and 
will never perish. The greeting of Christians 
is a part of prayer.—None does truly receive 


peace, unless he have received the grace of God; 
hence that peace, which is not the daughter of 
grace, is the offspring of corrupt nature, and a 
carnal security.—God deems none worthy of 
peace or grace, who do not deem themselves un- 
worthy of either or both, well knowing, that in 
virtue of his greatest misery he does not merit 
any thing, but that he stands in need of mercy. 
—The grace of God is not with us, unless it be 
also in us, and be worthily received by us. 

HeEvuBNER: Love towards a Christian presup- 
poses the knowledge of the truth, and the love 
of it. But Christ is the truth. For the truth’s 
sake the shepherd should love his flock.—All 
greetings ought to have a Christian foundation. 

Besser: Every pastor is a successor to the 
office of the Apostles, and according to the Divine 
right, there is no difference between bishops, 
and pastors, and parsons. [On this point I beg 
leave to differ with the Author, although this is 
not the place to discuss so important a question. 
—M.]. Grace, which removes our guilt, mercy, 
which delivers us from misery, peace, into which 
grace and mercy translate us. 


2. Hxhortation to walk in truth and love. 


vv. 411. 


I rejoiced greatly that I found! of thy children walking in truth, as we haye re- 


ceived a commandment from the Father.? 


And now I beseech thee, lady, not as 


though I wrote’ a new commandment unto thee, but that which* we had from the 


beginning, that we love one another. 
Srdnicnte. This is the commandment,® 


not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.® 


And this is love, that we walk after his com- 


That, as ye have heard from the beginning, 


For many deceivers are entered’ into the world, who confess 


This is a deceiver and an antichrist.’ 


Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought,” but that 


we receive a full reward.” 


Whosoever transgresseth,! and abideth δεν in the doc- 


trine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine” of Christ, he hath 


4 

5 

6 

7 ye should walk in it.® 
8 

9 

0 both the Father and the Son.® 
1 


trine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 


If there come any unto you, and bring not this doc- 


For” he that 


biddeth him!* God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” 


Verse 4, ξ German: “That I have found.” 


So Alford, Lillie.—M.] 


2 Instead of ἐλάβ ομεν Cod. Sin. reads, ἔ λα βον, evidently a writing error; Α. and others have ἀ πὸ, 


instead of παρὰ; B. omits τοῦ. 

Verse 5. 
γράφων; that of B., al: 

rected from 1 Jno. ii. 77 (German: 

4 Cod. Sin. inserts ἐντολὴν before Hv. 

Verse 6. 
[6 German: 


Verse 7. 


[3 German: 


3 A. B.G. K. Sin. γράφω v; elsewhere γράφω. 
ἐντολὴν γράφων σοὶ καινήν. 
“Not asif I write,” better “not as writing,” Alford, Lillie.—M.] 


The arrangement of A. Sin. is: ἐντολὴν καινὴν 
Might the former have been cor- 


5 G. Cod. Sins: αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἐντολή: B.D. Καὶ αὕτη ἡ ἐντολή ἐστιν. 
“As ye heard from the beginning, that ye should walk in it.” 

plies however “even” before “as ye heard, etc.”—M.] 
7B. Sin. ἐξῆλθον; A. ἐξῆλθαν; ἃ. Κ. εἰσῆλθον. 


So Lillie and Alford, who sup- 


[German: “went out,’ Alford: “went forth.” 


“who did not confess Jesus Christ, who cometh in the flesh;” “ who confess not Jesus Christ 


coming in (the) flesh” (Alford), so Lillie, who omits the definite Article before flesh.—M. ] 


[9 German: 
10G. K.: 
rection : 


Verse 8. 


““This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” 
ἀπολέσωμεν--εἰργασάμεθα- ἀπολάβωμεν: Cod. Sin.: 
ἀπολέσητεγ-εἰργάσασθαι (εἰττπάἀπολάβητε; thus 4180 A. but Β.: 


So Alford, Lillie —M.] 
ἀπολῆσθε (with the cor- 
ἀπολέσητε 


-ππεἰργασάμεθα--ἀπολάβητε;: this is decidedly preferable as the lectio ‘difficilior and mater lec- 


ore: Bengel, on very slender grounds, recommends: 


Bow 
(Geman 

full reward.”—Alford : 

full.”’—Lillie: “ 


ἀπολέσητε, εἰργάσασθε--ἀπολά- 


“ Look to yourselves, that ye do not lose, what things we have wrought, but that ye receive 
that ye lose not the things which we wrought but receive reward in 
but receive a full reward.”—M.] 


190 


Verse 9. 
with the variations: precedit, procedit.. 


(German: “ Every one that progresseth ;” Alford: “goeth before you.” 


ll A.B. Cod. Sin: προάγων; G.K: παραβαίνων. 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


The former reading is supported by the versions 


—M. 


12 A. B. Cod. Sin. omit τοῦ Χριστοῦ, which are perhaps repeated from the ee half of the verse 
(German: ‘ He that abideth in the doctrine ;” so Alford.—M.] 
13 B.Cod. Sins καὶ τὸν πατέρα kat τὸν υἱὸν; As καὶ τὸν υἱὸν Kal τὸν πατέρα. 
Verse 10. [14 German: ‘And do not bid him welcome;” Alford: “0 not bid him good speed:” Lillie: “neither bid 


him hail.” 
all the versions.— M.] 
Verse 11. 


15 A. B. Cod. Sin: ὃ λέγων yap; G.K.o y 


The introduction of the Divine name both in this verse and the next, is avoided by almost 


ap λέγων. The former reading is preferable because of 


the weight of authority by which it is supported, and also because of its singularity. 
16 A. B. G. Cod. Sin: αὐτῷ; αὐτὸν is probably an error; there is not sufficient reason for its omission. 
1 The Vulgate (ed. Sixtin.) concludes thus: Ecce, predixi vobis, ne in diem domini condemnemini (ut in 


diem—non confundamini). 
They are interpolated. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 4. Joy in [the lady’s children—M.] walk- 
ing in the truth. I rejoiced greatly.— The 
Aorist ἐχάρην answers to the Perfect εὕρηκα and 
notes the time, when he did make the discovery, 
hence it is not=I rejoice (Luther). The Pauline 
Epistles begin with similar expressions of joy in 
the Christian standing of Churches; we have 
here, however, not an imitation but only the ex- 
pression of the same Christian mode of viewing 
things. Cf. Rom. i. 8 sqq.; 1 Cor. i. 4 sqq.; 2 
Cor. i. 8 sqq.; Eph. i. 8 sqq.; Phil. i. 3 sqq.; 
Col. i. 8 sqq.— 

That I have found of thy children walk- 
ing in truth.—The first reference here is 
to ἐν ἀληθείᾳ v. ὃ. [Alford: ‘not only in honesty 
and uprightness, but in that truth which is de- 
rived from and is part of the truth of God in 
Christ.”—M.].— Ex τῶν τεκνῶν cov is not—=ra 
τέκνα σου, but should be taken in a partitive 
sense, though there is no need of supplying 
τίνας (Beza), as in 1 Jno, iv. 18; Jno. ΧΙ, Τῆς 
Matth. xxiii. $4. The omission of the Article 
before περιπατοῦντας does not import that her 
other children did not walk ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. Ebrard’s 
remark—‘ Itis a delicate way, how the presbyter 
conceals the censure he has to express in a mere 
limitation of praise’’—is overfine, for it cannot 
be maintained that the same praise of walking in 
truth could not be accorded to all.  Evpyxa 
simply states that the Apostle had found them, 
but there is here no intimation how he found 
them, whether accidentally, or in consequence 
. of inquiries to that effect. But περιπατοῦντας de- 
notes sons, whom the Apostle was more likely to 
encounter on his missionary journeys than 
daughters; hence the reference seems to be 
rather to an accidental meeting. Liicke, not 
without some ground (vy. 12), thinks that he met 
the children without their mother, elsewhere 
than in the family. Bengel: Hos liberos in domo 
matertere. eorum invenerat Johannes, v.13. But 
this uncertainty does not favour, as Huther 
thinks, the hypothesis of a Church, but [rather] 
that of a lady.—On περιπατεῖν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, de- 
noting not only the Christian state, but true, vi- 
tal Christianity, see 1 Jno.i.6,7; ii. 6; οἵ 8 
Jno. 8, 4; Jno. viii. 12.— 

According as we received command- 
ment from the Father.—The clause intro- 
duced by καθώς expressly refers to objective Di- 
vine truth, as the ground of Christian walking. 
Ebrard falsely understands καθώς in the sense of 
‘even as we,” and turns the thought ‘‘even as 
we have (indeed) a command from the Father 


The words are foundin Greek in the Lectiones Velesian. 


(Tischendorf ). 


(that we should walk in the truth).” But the 
clause in question should not be taken argumen- 
tatively, but as an apposition and explanation. 
’EvtoAyv does not refer to the commandment of 
brotherly love (Liicke), but denotes the sepira- 
τεῖν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ taken as ἐντολῇ (de Wette, Huther, 
Diisterdieck).—On παρὰ τοῦ πατρός see v. 3. The 
interpretation of Oecumenius that Christ is here 
referred to as the Father of believers cannot be 
upheld by Is. viii. 18; Hebr. ii. 13. But the 
mediation of Christ is to be supplied [Huther— 
M.]. 

Reference to ἐν ἀγάπῃ (v. 8). vv. 5, 6. 

Ver. 5. And now I beseech thee, lady.— 
Kai νῦν asin 1 Jno. 11. 28. The connection is 
not temporal but logical, and moreover with the 
whole of vy. 4, not with the subordinate clause 
beginning with καθὼς only (as Diisterdieck 
thinks); nor does it belong to ἐρωτῶ in order to 
mark the point of time. On ἐρωτῶ Schlichting 
says: ‘‘blandior quedam admonendi γαΐϊο ; Diis- 
terdieck calls it an entreaty with a reference to 
the inviolable authority of the Divine law of love. 
Hence the Apostle adds: 

Not as writing to thee a new command- 
ment, but that which we had from the 
beginning.—Cf. 1 Jno. ii. 7: that we should 
love one another.—‘Iva ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, as 
the object of ἐρωτῶ, indicates its end and aim. 
Hence it does not describe or specify the sub- 
stance of ἐντολῇ (Baumgarten-Crusius). 

Ver. 6. And this is love, that we should 
walk according to His commandments.— 
᾿Αγάπη is left undefined and nothing is said be- 
yond its being exhibited in our walking accord- 
ing to the commandments of God; so that the 
reference is neither to love to the brethren 
(Benson), nor to love to God (Grotius, Carpzov., 
and al.), but to love in general, asin 1 Jno. iv. 
7, 16 sqq.—This is the view of most and the best 
commentators. The end of all the command- 
ments of God regulating the conduct of men, is 
love; hence iva, as at 1 Jno. v. 8. Hence also 
κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, is here followed by ἐντολή 
in the Singular, as denoting their unity. 

The commandment is this,—cf. 1 Jno. iii. 
22, 28; it is further described as to its contents. 

As ye heard from the beginning, as in y. 
5. It. is not a secondary aim of the command- 
ment, as such (de Wette, Liicke). 

That ye should walk in it.—'Iva denotes 
the aim and scope; é αὐτῇ refers to ἀγάπῃ 
which should be supplied; for ἐν ἐντολῇ περίπα- 
reiv does not occur, and would be an intolerable 
tautology (against Sander). Thus the Apostle 
describes the identity of love, especially of broth- 
erly love, and of obedience to God; both stand 
and fall together. 


VERSES 4-11. 5 


Description of the false teachers: v. 7. 

For many deceivers.—'0r grounds the rea- 
son of this exhortation to brotherly love on the 
Apostle’s fear of its being marred by the in- 
fluence of false teachers (Huther). But ὅτε is not 
governed by ἐρωτῶ σε (Liicke, Ewald), nor should 
there be mentally repeated ἐρωτῶ ce (de Wette), 
nor should any thought be supplied, 6. g. ‘‘see- 
ing that ye have the true Christianity, I have to 
warn you, for” (Heumann), or ‘‘hoc non temere 
dizi, nam” (Beza); nor does δε introduce a prota- 
sis, followed by v. 8 as apodosis (Grotius, Carp- 
zov), wholly unlike the Johannean diction. 
Bengel’s remark also is wrong: ‘ratio cur jubeat 
retinere audita a principio.” The love required (vv. 
5, 6) rests on the truth (v. 7), and the ἐντολή (v. 
6) embraces also the truth (v. 7, Diisterdieck). 
@£ yy. 128, and 1 Jno. i. 23, 16. The false 
teachers are called πλάνοι on account of their 
influence and effect on believers. 1 Jno. ii. 26; 
SMa ἐν. dle 

Went out into the world.—l Jno. ii. 19; 
iv. 1; Who do not confess Jesus Christ 
coming in flesh.—0i μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες denotes 
that whereby, or how these are πλάνοι. Winer, 
p. 146. But Winer (p. 405) errs in assuming a 
genus on account of μή: all those who do not 
confess, guicunque non profitentur. If we had οὐχ 
it would be equal to: οἱ ἀρνούμενοι. But the ref- 
erence here is not to simple, open denial, but to 
a contradicting, which by various turnings and 
twistings, evades and endangers the definite con- 
fession. Cf. 1 Jno. iv. 2, 8. ’Epyduevov ἐν σαρκί 
is different both from ἐληλυθότα (1 Jno. iv. 2), 
and from ὁ ἐλθών (1 Jno. v. 6). The Present 
denotes the thought per se ““ without any reference 
to time” 1 Cor. xv. 35 (Diisterdieck), ‘‘separate 
from all consideration of time” (Huther); so also 
Liicke, de Wette, Sander and al.—This may inti- 
mate that the false teachers denied the possibility 
of the Incarnation (Liicke). Bengel (qui veniebat) 
is beside the mark, for 3 Jno. 3, where the Par- 
ticiple Imperfect is clearly indicated by ἐχάρην, 
is not apposite here; and so is Oecumenius, who 
per enallagen temporis suggests the second advent 
of Christ. 

This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 
-- Οὗτος refers to οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες, and expresses 
plurality (πολλοὶ πλάνοι) in unity: ἐστίν ὁ πλάνος ; 
it is a transition from the Plural to the distribu- 
tive Singular; Winer, pp. 186, 654. The words 
Kal ὁ ἀντίχριστος give prominence to a further 
characteristic of πλάνος (Huther); we must not 
say, however, that the πλάνος is in reality only in 
the many that have the πνεῦμα πλάνης (Liicke, 
Huther); but he is personally behind the many, 
who are his forerunners. Cf. 1 Jno. ii. 18, 22. 

Warning against the false teachers. vv. 8, 9. 

Ver. 8. Look to yourselves, βλέπετε 
ἑαυτούς. They are to consider what would be 
the loss entailed upon themselves by being 
deceived, viz., the loss of fellowship with the 
Father and the Son, the loss of truth and love. 
Bengel’s explanatory clauses ‘me absente” would 
be in point, if we had here: βλέπετε ὑμεῖς ἑαυτοῖς, 
as in Mark xiii. 9. Moreover they themselves 
had to look to themselves, even though the Apos- 
tles were present. 

That ye do not lose.—'Iva μῇ denotes the end 
and aim of their precaution. Matth. xii. 16; xxvi. 

32 


191 


| 5; Luke xviii. 5; John vii. 23; 1 Cor. xvi. 10. 


The object is to avoid a loss, even a loss on the 
part of the readers. But of what? 

What things we have wrought.—The 
Apostles of Jesus Christ had done, wrought and 
accomplished something by their labours and 
preaching, even a possession of truth and love 
with their fruits (ἃ εἰργασάμεθα), which possession 
will be lost, if they give ear to false teachers 
(Diisterdieck, Huther). This a bold self-testimony 

1 Jno. i. 3; iv. 6). It is unnecessary to add ἐν 
ὑμῖν, as Liicke thinks, for the context supplies it. 
The first person does not require us to under- 
stand that the Apostle must have converted the 
children of the κυρία; he only includes himself in 
the number of the Apostles and genuine witnesses 
of Christ, whom he opposes to the recipients of 
their preaching, without determining through 
whose instrumentality the children of the κυρία 
were converted ; but the teachers and their hear- 
ers are not taken together. 

But that ye receive full reward.—Mucfé¢ 
denotes the blessing of truth and love in one’s 
own heart, in life with its joys and sorrows, and 
in eternity; μισϑὸν πλήρη is the full reward, un- 
curtailed, as it falls to the lot of perfect fidelity 
(Huther, Diisterdieck); it is not—oAdv (Carp- 
zov), nor is it said that they had only received it 
in part, and that they were to receive it fully in 
eternity (Grotius, Ebrard), for this fulness is 
relative; there is even here onearth a full reward, 
a full peace, a full παῤῥησία, etc., in conformity to 
the relations of this present time. But Bengel 
rightly observes: ‘‘nwlla merces dimidia est, aut 
tota amittitur, aut plena accipitur,” but his next 
remark is irrelevant, viz., ‘‘consideranda diversitas: 
graduum in gloria; for the blessed have their 
full reward on the lowest grade. But ἀπολάβητε 
designates the receiving asa gift, a present (Col. 
iii. 24; Gal. iv. 2; Luke xvi. 25). Taking all the 
verbs in the first person, weakens the thought as 
much as taking them all in the second person 
(see Apparatus Crit. Note 10); in the former case 
the teachers and hearers are taken together, in 
the latter the teachers are wholly excluded, and. 
the delicate touches, the Apostle’s right of warn- 
ing them, and the weight of the Apostolical 
warning are all lost. ᾿ 

Ver. 9. Every one that progresseth and 
abideth not in the doctrine of Christ.— 
This describes him who does not receive the full 
reward, of whom they are warned, whereby they 
lose the reward. Ὁ προάγων and μὴ μένων desig- 
nate the same persons, positively and negatively. 
Προάγειν denotes a progression, a going before, 
which in the opinion of the προάγων is the reach- 
ing of a higher degree of knowledge, a decided 
progress, but in reality is a departure from the 
truth, ἐν διδαχῇ τοῦ χριστοῦ, ἃ going beyond the 
limits of Christian doctrine. Huther errs in see- 
ing here an ironical allusion (Diisterdieck); it is 
a bitter truth of the actual fact. On προάγειν ef.. 
Matth. xxi. 9; 1 Tim.i. 18; v. 24, On the cha- 
racteristics of those who know and learn without 
knowledge, see 2 Tim. iii. 7. The lectio rec. παρα- 
βαίνων, passing by, τὴν διδαχῆν (according to 
Matth. xv. 3), or ἐκ τῆς διδαχῆς (Acts i. 25), and 
the exposition: ‘‘amdyuwv éavrév” (Oecumenius), 
are clearly untenable ; .and in the variation of the 
Vulgate recedit instead of precedit, it is more pro- 


192 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


—— eee ο΄  -. 


| 

bable that the former arose from the latter, than 
that the latter arose from the former. St. Paul 
also insists upon the μένειν, 2 Tim. iii. 14; 1. 13; 
Tit. i. 9.---Η διδαχὴ τοῦ χριστοῦ signifies that 
Paul calls the ὑγεαίνοντες λόγοι (2 Tim. i. 13); the 
Genitive is subjective (Diisterdieck, Huther al.). 
Agreeably to constant usage (Matth. vii. 28 ; xvi. 
12; xxii. 89: Mark i. 22; iv. 2; xii. 88; Acts 
ii. 42; v. 28), it cannot be the Genitive of the 
object (Bengel, Liicke, Sander, al.). Cf. Jno. 
viii. 81: μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ. It is the 
doctrine whichChrist Himself brought and taught 
and caused to be propagated by His Apostles. 
But, of course, the principal part of its contents, 
is Christology. 

Hath not God.—cf. 1 Jno. ii. 23; v. 12.— 
Truth, life and God are inseparable. 

He that abideth in the doctrine hath 
both the Father and the Son.—The same 
thought, not only repeated positively, but com- 
pleted by the addition of καὶ τὸν υἱὸν, as in 1 Jno. 
ii. 23. [Alford: ‘The order in the text is the 
theological one, the Father being mentioned 
first, then the Son. That in A. ete. is the logi- 
cal and contextual one, seeing that the test is, 
abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Thus he has 
Christ, and through Him, the Father: which of the 
two is original, it is impossible to decide.””—M. ]. 

Warning against fellowship with the false teachers. 
vv. 10, 11. 

Ver. 10. If any cometh to you.—EH τις 
ἔρχεται shows that the case supposed actually ex- 
isted. Winer, p. 807. ’Eav with the subjunctive 
denotes a possibility. Thereis hence no occasion 
for surprise, as if this were unjohannean (de 
Wette, Ebrard), since it cannot be unjohannean 
to suppose a case as actually existing. Πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς, as in 2 Tim. iii. 6, refers to the forwardness 
of the false teachers and their calculating on the 
greater receptivity and mouldableness of women. 

And bringeth not this doctrine.—Kai 
adds the capacity and character in which such 
persons come, not as soliciting aid, as necessitous 
persons, but as false teachers (Bengel: quasi 
doctor aut frater). The use of ov φέρει, instead of 
yf, also shows that the case mentioned is actually 
true, and imports the simple denial of φέρειν. 
Similar is φέρειν κατηγορίαν, Jno. xviii. 29 (Acts 
xxv. 7). It is unnecessary to supply here that 
the contrary doctrine is brought (de Lyra), and 
that the true doctrine is disputed (Tirinus) ; this 
is self-evident from 1 John iv. 2, 3. Ταύτην τὴν 
διδαχήν is τὴν διδαχὴν τοῦ χριστοῦ. Non de tis, qui 
alieni semper fuerunt ab ecclesia (1 Cor. v. 10), sed 
de 115 qui volunt fratres haberi et doctrinam evertunt 
(Grotius). 

Receive him not into (your) house.—On 
the above supposition the point in question is not 
an act of φιλοξενία (Heb. xiii. 2; Rom. xii. 18) ; 
for the reference is not to the necessitous. The 
injunction simply bears upon the false teachers 
not being received into the house (αὐτὸν εἰς οἰκίαν 
λαμβάνειν), on account of the danger per se. 

And do not bid him welcome, which was 
unavoidable if they were received into the house ; 
the two circumstances should be taken together ; 
for while the former would be dangerous, the 
latter would be untrue; χαίρειν, joy, good speed, 
prosperity, cannot be said to the false teacher ; 
only to ὁμοτρόποις and ὁμοπίστοις is due the Chris- 


tian, fraternal greeting, in its deeper import 
(Oecumenius, Caloy, Bengel, Liicke, de Wette, 
Huther, Diisterdieck and al). This χαίρειν μὴ 
λέγετε must therefore not be limited to the saluta- 
tio as a conventional form of politeness (Clemens 
Alex.), or as an expression of friendship (Gro- 
tius), or be taken quite generally: velut hic Jo- 
annes omne colloquium, omne consortium, omne com- 
mercium cum hereticis (a Lapide), or applied to ex- 
communication (Vitringa, de syn. vet. p. 759); 
nor must it be referred to the κρίσις which was 
necessary only at that time (Liicke), nor must it 
be construed, according to the now prevailing 
loftier view that man, all his errors notwithstand- 
ing, remains man and an object of esteem and 
love, as an act of intolerance which may have 
been justifiable at that time (de Wette), or be 
charged to the fiery temperament of the Apostle, 
according to the notices contained in Luke ix. 54 
and Euseb. Hist. Eccl. III. 28; ΤΥ. 14. The refer- 
ence is simply to the cultivation of personal ac- 
quaintance and fraternal intercourse with the 
false teachers; this is, and continues to be, for- 
bidden; brotherly love in its depth, truth and 
blessedness has its limits. Hofmann, Schriftbe- 
weis 11. 2, p. 839. 

Ver. 11. For he that biddeth him wel- 
come, partaketh in his deeds, the evil 
ones.—Tdp gives the reason of the injunction: 
in the words ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν the Apostle 
gives prominence to the one point which is closely 
connected with the other: αὐτὸν εἰς οἰκίαν λαμβά- 
ve. The clause κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ shows 
that we have here not simply an outward conven- 
tional form of politeness, but an ‘‘inward relation 
of communion” (Huther), which is fostered. The 
ἔργα τὰ πονηρά are primarily acts of communica- 
ting false doctrine, but secondarily also the whole 
ethical conduct. connected with it, which injures 
God, Christ, the Church, the truth, individual 
communities, believers and their souls. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. The knowledge of the truth from God is ac- 
quired in the way of obedience to the will of God 
vy. 4). 

2. ‘he law of God should only be viewed as 
the revelation of His love, and as it originates in 
love, so it impels to love (vv. 5, 6). 

3. The acme and ground of all error is the de- 
nial of the Incarnation of Christ (v. 7). He 
that breaks with Christ come in the flesh and as 
the Son of man ever the Coming One, breaks 
brotherhood with believers and forces them to 
break brotherhood with him. Besser truly says: 
“The doctrine of Christ is through and through 
from Christ. ‘Itis I,’ is the fundamental theme 
of the Gospel, preached by Himself and the holy 
Apostles, from beginning to end.” Believing 
Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, United, are 
brethren and remain brethren, because they are 
living Christians, the children of God and co- 
heirs with Christ. But he ought hardly to have 
used this passage for the purpose of warning 
against the union nor to have said: ‘ Yes, peo- 
ple reverse the meaning of John and are per- 
chance afraid to hold private intercourse with 
manifest blasphemers and revilers of the Divine 
truth, perhaps to take coffee with them, but— 


VERSES 4-11. 


193 


alas! our table has become more holy to us than 
God’s table.” For these things occur, inside the 
same communion, every where and at all times, 
if instead of putting blasphemers, he had said: 
hypocrites or adulterers. 

4. False teachers corrupt not only the christo- 
logical truth, but also the work of the Church 
and the salvation of individual church-members 
{(νν. 7, 8). 

5. The promised reward is not a merit of good 
works, but a consequence of Divine appointment, 
and a communicated gift (v. 8). 

6. True progress is only possible in the main- 
tenance and on the foundation of Christian truth 
(v. 9). For men come short not so much in the 
desire to be furthered, as in the judgment as to 
what constitutes true progress, and what is the 
true mode of progressing. A striving forward 
with a good conscience will always be a diligent 
and faithful road-maker bridging over the chasm 
between himself and signal successes, by the 
most faithful and scrupulous discharge of duty. 

7. In the converse among Christians love must 
not be practised at the expense of truth and 
truthfulness (vv. 10, 11), nor must the truth be 
spoken at the expense of love! 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Compare Doctrinal and Ethical. 

SrarKke:—Preachers should rejoice most when 
they see that young children are well trained, 
grow in grace and make the beginning of their 
wisdom in the fear of the Lord.—Christians have 
also their joy in the world, though not of the 
world.—Godly children are their parents’ joy, 
the ornament of the Church and the joy of all 
godly people. Young plants of righteousness 
look more beautiful in the garden of the Lord, 
than old trees on the point of decaying.—Truth 
is not only to be investigated and meditated 
upon, but it must be practised, and men should 
walk in it.—A preacher should not always use 
severity and earnestness, but also lenity and gen- 
tleness, not command but entreat his people to 
become godly.—Whenever thou lackest the mind 
to follow, thou art wont to cry: it is a novelty! 
Thou utterest a falsehood! Hear what St. John 
says: To love, which contains all the command- 
ments, has been from the beginning.—Christian- 
ity needs no new commandments, but it requires 
the constantly renewed inculcation of the old 
commandments.—It is not enough that the truth 
be preached, falsehood must also be denounced. 
The heresies, persecutions and abuses in the 
Church of God must not cause us to waver, and 


doubt the truth of the Christian religion, but | 


rather strengthen and confirm us while we are 
exposed to their danger.—Alas, by nature we all 
have an antichristian mind and antichrist in our 
hearts; he who does not know and expel him, 
will nevermore know or avoid the outward anti- 
christ.—Ye that are wise overmuch and are anx- 
ious about unnecessary things, ye that judge and 
@énsure every thing, hear what St. John says: 
“Look to yourselves.”—Delightful reward of 


faithful ministers, if they see in their hearers the 
fruit of their labour arranged according to the 
mind of Christ.—The less regard a minister pays 
to the temporal reward in his office, the more is 
he faithful, and the greater will be the reward 
which he shall receive from Christ, the Great 
Shepherd.—What can a man lack who has God, 
and what can a man possess who has not God? 
If none may receive into their houses wicked and 
false teachers, how much the more ought they not 
to be introduced into the, sheepfold of Christ, 
which would be like taking wolves among sheep! 
It is injurious to have fellowship with false peo- 
ple, but still more injurious to open to them the 
door of our heart; where the first is done, the 
latter is wont not to be wanting.—Who enters 
into a pest-house? Do we not flee a bedfellow 
affected with a venomous disease? Why not like- 
wise a deceiver, a servant of Satan? The oppo- 
site takes place in the world: be friendly to 
everybody except to Christ in His members !— 
The greetings of-Christians should not be merely 
conventional, but spring from the ground of 
truth and love.—A Christian should be on his 
guard not only against his own sins, but also 
against those of others, of which he may easily 
and in various ways become partaker. 

Hevusner:—The children of the same family 
are not always of one mind; a godly mother may 
have unbelieving children.—Christian mothers, 
Christian families are a blessing to the world.— 
Those also who run already in the Christian 
course need stirring up.—A Christian’s treasure 
is liable to be lost as long as he continues to live 
among deceivers and enemies; hence the neces- 
sity of foresight, courage and fidelity of vigilance 
over himself and in respect of temptation: the 
more precious the treasure, the more carefully 
should it be guarded. It is slowly acquired, but 
may be lost at once. The number of those who 
once had grace and then lost it, will one day ap- 
pear very great.—John teaches us what we 
should ask of every one that comes to us, to wit: 
do you bring Christ with you or not? Reception 
was denied to a false teacher, because it would 
have been a token of brotherly acknowledgment ; 
but this was so much the more to be denied, be- 
cause such reception took place in the name of 
the Church, and hence would have been a decla- 
ration that the whole Church did receive him as 
a brother. But on that account we need not in 
a case of emergency deny to such an one our 
bounden private love.—Love should never be 
prejudicial to the confession of our faith. Love 
at the expense of faith, to its injury or with its 
denial is nolove. This commandment was falsely 
applied in the case of John a Lasco, who having 
been expelled from England in the reign of Mary, 
A. D., 1553, was denied reception in Denmark, 
both he and his congregation (Salig, Hist. Conf. 
Aug. II., 1090}. 

Besser :—It is an idle speech that Christians 
and antichristians have one and the same God. 
«78 are believers in one God” is sung in truth 
by those only who continue: ‘We also believe 
in Jesus Christ, His Son and our Lord.” 


194 


THE SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


———c—e er, ͵͵͵͵.------- ττ᾽᾽᾽᾿. 


THE CONCLUSION. 


vy. 12, 13. 


12 


Having many things to write unto you, I would not write’ with paper and ink; but? I 


13 trust to come® unto you, and speak face to face, that our® joy may be full. The chil- 


dren of thy elect sister greet thee.® 


Verse 12. [1 German omits “write” supplied in E. V.—M. 


Amen.’ 


] 
Ξάλλα ἐλπίζω is the reading of the best and of most Codices, also of Cod. Sin. Α. δ]. read ἐ Amiga 


CLAS 
δπρὸς ὑμᾶς 


ενέσθαι is the most authentic reading; ἐλθεῖν lect. rec. supported by G. K.; Coptic 


version has ἐδεῖν ὑμᾶς according to 3 Jno. 14. 
[4 German: “mouth to mouth;” Alford, Lillie.—M.] 


δ Cod. Sin.@.K.: Χαρὰ ἡμῶν; A 


B. ὑμῶν. The former, on account of 1 Jno. i. 4 is lectio difficilior. 


Verse 13. [6 German: “There greet thee the children of thy sister, the elect one.” Alford: “There greet thee the chil- 


dren of thine elect sister.”—M.] 


ΤΑ μὴν, at the conclusion is wanting. Cod. Sin. A.B; “Iwavvov p Others add ἐπιστολὴ, others 


a 


τοῦ θεολόγου, and still others καθολική. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Breaking off. v. 12. 

Ver. 12. Having many things to write to 
you.—His heart is full; he had only written 
very little of what he had in his heart. Hence 
it is unwarrantable to see, with Ebrard, in most 
of these verses, simply citations from the First 
Epistle. 

I would not [write them] with paper and 
ink.—The Infinitive from the preceding clause: 
πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν γράφειν should, of course, be sup- 
plied here. Διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος denotes the 
written character of his communication; the 
more common phrase is: διὰ μέλανος---καὶ καλάμου, 
3 Jno. 13.—'0 χάρτης is the Egyptian papyrus, 
probably the so-called Augustan or Claudian, for 
letters; τὸ μέλαν, also 2 Cor. iii. 8, ink made of 
soot, water and gum; ὁ κάλαμος, the writing reed, 
probably split (μεσοσχιδῆς, μεσότομος). Cf. Liicke 
on this passage. The Aorist οὐκ ἐβουλήθην, from 
the standpoint of the readers on receiving the 
Epistle, because he wished to communicate it 
personally, orally. 


But I hope to come to you and to speak 
[say it] mouth to mouth.—The antithesis of 
γράφειν διὰ χάρτου kai μέλανος is πρὸς ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι 
καὶ στόμα πρὸς στόμα λαλῆσαι; because he hopes 
for the latter, he has broken off the former; but 
this does not import that he did reserve part of 
the doctrine necessary to salvation for oral tradi- 
tion (Barth. Petrus); for he surely spoke only 
what he had written in the first Epistle. On 
γένεσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς see Jno. vi. 21,25; Acts xx. 16; 
XXL 7 χα. ἸῸΝ 1 Cor, xvi. 10: “Jno. χ.. 90: 
Acts x. 13=to turn towards a person or place. 
On στόμα πρὸς στόμα λαλῆσαι, cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 12; 


Xenoph. Mem. II., 6, 32; and ποτὸν Γ5, 
Minh, ΧΗΣ ly Supima 


That our joy may be fulfilled [filled full]. 
—The aim (iva) is to fill up his own and the read- 
ers’ joy, and then that of the hearers. Cf. notes on 
1 Jno.i.4. The object of joy is not the personal 


presence of the Apostle (Bengel), but the full 
communication of the truth in oral intercourse. 

The greetings, v. 13. 

Ver. 13. There greet thee the children of 
thy sister, the elect one.—To explain τῆς 
ἀδελφῆς of a Church, and τέκνα of church-members 
is not warranted by any thing found here; the 
reason why the sister herself does not send greet- 
ings, may be death, or absence, but ‘‘can neither 
be ascertained, nor is it a proper question” 
(Diisterdieck versus Huther). Bengel: ‘Suavis- 
sima communitas ! Comitas apostoli, minorum verbis 
salutem nunciantis.”’ 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


SrarKE:—Both what the Apostles wrote and 
what they spoke is the word of God, and we 
do well to bear this in mind.—A true reader is 
he, who not satisfied with the written Epistle or 
the printer’s work on paper, suffers the Holy 
Spirit to write in his heart and thus becomes him- 
self an Epistle of the living God.—It is a blessing 
of God if we have the opportunity given to us of 
conferring with friends on matters of importance 
and of enjoying the benefit of their counsel.—The 
children of the world imagine that the life of the 
godly consists in nothing but dejected looks and 
constant sorrowing ; but here applies that saying: 
as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing.—He is the 
servant of his belly, but not the servant of Christ, 
who seeks in his office other joy than the salva- 
tion of his hearers.—It is and ever will be a beau- 
tiful custom to interchange cordial greetings with 
friends in Epistles and in other ways, and thus 
to desire for them all temporal and spiritual pros- 
perity.—Happy are those sisters and brothers 
who besides being united by the ties of nature, 
are also firmly united by the tie of Divine grace. 
For it is eternal grace only, which works alliances 
of eternal friendship. 

Hevusner:—With us it is often the opposite; 
we have much to write and little to speak, when 
we do meet.—When those who are one in faigh, 
meet and converse together of the grace of God, 
of which they have made experience, they havea 
foretaste of heavenly joy. 


TE 


THIRD EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN THE APOSTLE. 


(Ἰωάννου γ in B. and Cod. Sinait. C.adds ἐπιστολὴ, G. τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου.) 


I. The Address. 


Vv. 


1 


The elder unto the well beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth!. 


Verse 1. [1 German: The presbyter to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 1. On ὁ πρεσβύτερος see Introduction 2 1. 
It can hardly be determined whether this Gaius 
is one of the two or three persons of that name, 
who are mentioned as friends and companions of 
Panloin’) Acts) xix. 293) χα δ Rom! xvi. 23: 
1 Cor. i. 14. Liicke thinks that our Gaius is 
identical with Gaius of Derbe mentioned Acts xx. 
4, Wolf, in his Curis ad. h. 1., that the Gaius men- 
tioned 1 Cor. i. 14 is meant here. Others sup- 
pose that the Gaius, mentioned Constit. Ap. 7, 
46, and appointed by John Bishop of Pergamus, 
is the one referred to here (Whiston) ; but this is 
also purely hypothetical. Nor can it be inferred 


from v. 8 of this Epistle that Gaius was a presby- 
ter. As John adds to the address the term τῷ 
ἀγαπητῷ, 80 he also addresses him as ἀγαπητέ in 
yy. 3, ὃ, 11, and superadds as in 2 John 1, the 
words: ὃν ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (Oecumenius: ὁ 
κατὰ κύριον ἀγαπῶν ἐνδιαϑέτῳ ἀγάπῃ). 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Starke: Those who wish to be loved of men, 
must be lovable and worthy of love; this is done, 
if they give up the love of the world, and love 
God only.—Truth and love are precious jewels 
of Christians, which must be linked together and 
are more ornamental than golden chains. The 
one cannot exist without the other; truth with- 
out love is dead, and love without truth is blind. 


2 
3 
+ 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 


The Apostle’s joys and sorrows. 
vy. 2-11. 


Beloved, I wish above all things’ that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even 
as thy soul prospereth. For? I rejoiced greatly when the® brethren came and testified 
of the truth that is in thee,* even as thou’ walkest in the truth® I have no greater 
joy than’ to hear that my children walk in truth. Beloved, thou doest faithfully? 
whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and" to strangers; Which have borne wit- 
ness of thy charity before the church”: whom if thou bring forward on their journey 
after a godly sort, thou shalt do well:'* Because that for his name’s sake they 
went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.» We therefore ought to receive'® such, 
that we might be fellow helpers to the truth”. I wrote unto the church: but Dio- 


196 


THE THIRD EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


10 trephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them,” receiveth us not. Where- 
fore, if I come, I will remember” his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with 
malicious words”: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the 
brethren, and” forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. 

11 Beloved, follow* not that which is eyil, but that which is good. He that doeth good 

12 is of God: but* he that doeth evil hath not seen God. Demetrius hath good report 
of all men, and of the truth itself*: yea, and we a/so bear record; and ye know™ that 


our record” is true. 


Verse 2, [| German: “In all things.” Sb Lillie. 


“Concerning all things.” Alford.—M.] 


Verse 3. 2 Cod. Sin. and several minusc. omit yap after ἐχάρην. 


te German: “ When brethren came.” 


Lillie.—M. ] 


4German; “ And testified to thy truth;” so Alford, Lillie —M.] 
5 σὺ is emphatic, omitted in A., but inserted in B. C. G. K. Cod. Sin. 
[6 German: “In truth,” without the Article; so Alford, Lillie —M.] 


Verse 4. 


7 The best authorities read τούτων; ταύτης found only in minusc. and versions, is doubtless a correc- 
tion.—_Some read χάριν instead of χαρὰν. 


(German: “Greater than this I have no joy, that;” 


Lillie: “Greater joy than this I have none, to hear;” Alford: “Ihave no greater joy than this, 


that.”—M.] 


8A.B.év τῇ ἀλησείᾳ; 6. Cod. Sin. al. omit the Article. 


Verse 5. ie German; “ Beloved, thou actest faithfully.” 


So Lillie—M.] 


0B 6. G. K. Cod. Sin. al. read "ἐργάσῃ, so that the ἐργά ζῃ of A cannot stand. 


1 A. B. C. Cod. Sin. al. have καὶ τοῦτο, instead of kai ets τοὺς, of G. K. 


gers.” So Alford.—M.] 


{[German: “ And that stran- 


Verse 6. [12 German: “ Who have testified to thy love before the Church ;” so Lillie and Alford, who Tenders however: 


“in the presence of the Church.”—M.] 


[8 German: “ Whom thou shalt do well to conduct (forward) worthily of God.” 


Alford: “Whom thou wilt 


do well if thou forward on their way, worthily of God;” Lillie: “‘ Whom thou shalt do well to forward 
their way, in a manner worthy of God.”—M.] 


Verse 7. [14 German: “For they went out on behalf of the name;” Lillie; “For in behalf of the name they went 


forth.” Alford: “ On behalf of.’”—M.] 


15 A, B. C. Cod. Sin. al. read ἐθνικῶν, instead of ἐθνῶν, the reading of G. K. [German: “ Receiving 


nothing from the heathens.”—M.] 


Verse 8, 16 A. B.C. Cod. Sin.al.: ὑπολαμβάνειν; α.Κιι ἀπολαμβάνειν. 


WT7 ἀληθείᾳ; Cod. Sin: τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, with the emendation τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. 


{The latter reading, 


without the emendation, occurs also in A.—M.] 
Verse 9. 18 A. B. C. Cod. Sin. read rv; a hand has added av in Cod. Sin. [German: “I wrote somewhat to the 


Church;” so Alford.—M.} 


[9 German: “ But he who loveth to be the first of them, Diotrephes, does not receive us;” Lillie: “ But he 
who loveth to be foremost among them, Diotrephes, doth not admit us;” Alford: ‘ Howbeit, Diotre- 
phes, who loveth preéminence over them, receiveth us not.”—M.] 


Verse 10. β German: “ Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance ;” so Lillie; Alford: ‘ Bring to mind.”—M.] 


21 German: “ Wicked words.’—M. 


22 German: ‘ And not contented with this, neither does he himself receive the brethren, but also, those who 
would do it, he hindereth, and casteth out of the Church.”—M.] 


Verse 11. [23 German: “ Imitate not evil, but good;” so Alford. —M. ] 


2460 κακοποιῶν is best authenticated 


[Α. B. C. K—M.]; ὁ δὲ κακοπ., text. rec., is only feebly sup- 


ported. [German: “He that doeth evil,” omits the “ but” of Εἰ. V., so Alford.—M.] 


Verse 12, 50 C. inserts τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ before THs ἀληθείας. 
ί [A. corrected, Β. α. K. read ἀληθείας. 


ἐκκλησίας. 


Instead οἵ ἀληθείας A. probably reads 
German: “Unto Demetrius testimony hath 


been borne by all, and by the truth itself.’—M. 
[35 German: “ And thou knowest; A. B. C. al. Vulg.;olédas; οἴδατε 1]. Τ. according to the G. K. al. several 


versions, etc.—M.] 


[51 German: “That our testimony is true.”—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Wish for the prosperity of Gaius. vy. 2-4. 

Ver. 2. Beloved :—Joy in and care for Gaius 
account for the accumulation of terms of endear- 
ment. 

In all things I wish that thou mayest 
prosper.—lIlepi πάντων is simply idiomatic: with 
respect to all things: περὶ, with the idea of in- 
cluding, encircling, shutting in, both in connec- 
tion with substantives and absolutely, is found 
at the head of whole sentences in the sense of 
adtinet ad; 1 Cor. xvi. 1. Cf. Winer, p. 390, sq. 
Connected with εὔχομαι, which signifies ‘‘to 
wish,”’ but carries here also the force of inter- 
cession (cf. Jas. v. 15), the most natural sense is 
“praying for, concerning all things,’ without 
any necessity for recurring to the Homeric usage 
of the preposition, viz. prae—above all things, as 
alleged by Schott, Diisterdieck and others. Ra- 


ther than giving it that construction, we may 
connect περὶ πάντων with εὐοδοῦσθαι (Bengel, Hu- 
ther, al.), which connection is affected neither 
by the rhetorical emphasis of the position of 
περί πάντων (Liicke), nor by the circumstance 
that it cannot belong to iycaivecyv.—The prosperity 
referred to (εὐοδοῦσθαι) is general, in re familiari 
(Bengel), in all outward relations of life. Evo- 
δοῦν, to make, lead a good way (εὐοδία) is transi- 
tive, while εὐοδεῖν to have a good way, is intran- 
sitive; hence the Passive, which carries the 
same force as the intransitive verb. Cf. Rom. i. 
10; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Liicke, Diisterdieck and al.— 
Καὶ ὑγιαίνειν singles out a particular point. Pos- 
sibly Gaius had been sick (Diisterdieck), or was 
in delicate health; but this cannot be inferred 
with certainty as a fact, for health per se is im- 
portant enough, if outward prosperity is the 
matter referred to. 

Even as thy soul prospereth.—Oecumen- 
ius: ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πολιτείᾳ, consequently 


VERSES 2-12. ' 


197 


ea eee — 


in that it has the truth, and that he walks in it 
(v.38); the words καθὼς εὐοδοῦταί cov ἡ ψυχή contain 
a high encomium on Gaius and the object of the 
Apostle’s particular rejoicing. 

Ver. 3. For Irejoiced greatly.—On ἐχάρην 
yap λίαν see 2 Jno. 4. These words give the rea- 
son of the encomium, as of a well authenticated 
fact. 

When brethren came and testified to 
thy truth.—The connection with the Aorist 
ἐχάρην requires us to continue the Participles 
ἐρχομένων καὶ μαρτυρούντων as Imperfects, as in 
Luke xvii. 12 (Liicke, Huther, Diisterdieck al.); 
the Dative cov τῇ ἀληθείᾳ governed by μαρτυρεῖν 
(as in vv. 6,12; Jno. v. 88; xviii. 37; 111. 26) 
denotes the truth become subjective in Gaius; 
hence not==sinceritas (a Lapide, Beza and al.), 
but inward, Christian life, born of the truth, and 
itself truth (Liicke, Huther, Diisterdieck and 
al.); the restriction to liberalitas (Lorinus), is in- 
admissible. 

As thou walkest in truth.—This clause 
contains the testimony of the brethren, hence it 
is an indirect clause recording the Christianity 
of Gaius as evidenced by his walk; on that ac- 
count we have also ἀκούω in vy. 4, so that it is not 
the testimony of the Apostle added to that of the 
brethren (Besser). So Briickner, Huther, Diis- 
terdieck, and al. The express and emphatic σὺ 
denotes that the testimony of the brethren had 
been different with reference to others, for in- 
stance in the case of Diotrephes vv. 9, 10. 

Ver. 4. I have no greater joy than this. 
—Here the Apostle expresses his mind in general. 
On μειζοτέραν, a double comparative, like Eph. 
iii. 8, see Winer, p. 81. Grotius: ‘(2st ad inten- 
dendam significationem comparativus e comparativo 
factus.”” The Genitive τούτων is not—ravrne, the 
neuter Plural, carrying a general reference, is 
restricted by the following ἵνα to one idea. Winer, 
p. 175 compares ἐφ᾽ οἷς and ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, also μετὰ ταῦτα 
and καὶ ταῦτα idque, Heb. xi. 12, and cites Jno.i. 51. 

That I hear my children are walking in 
the truth.—On iva see Jno. xy. 13. It signifies 
the Apostle’s desire to hear this; this is his 
wholeaim. Τὰ ἐμὰ τέκνα are the Christians com- 
mitted to John; the members of the Churches 
confided to his care and placed under his pater- 
nal direction (Huther). 

Praise and necessity of hospitality. vv. 5-8. 

Ver. 5. Beloved, as in v. 2. 

Thou actest faithfully.—zvoriv ποιεῖς; Oc- 
cumenius: ἄξιον πιστοῦ ἀνδρός. Bengel: ‘‘Facis 
quiddam quod facile a te pollicebar mihi et fidelibus;”’ 
this explanation is too narrow, the reference to 
the πίστις which lays hold of the ἀλήθεια and car- 
ries out in love being too definite. But it is not 
on that account=ziorw ποιεῖσθαι (Ebrard). 

Whatsoever thou doest for the breth- 
ren.— 0 ἐὰν (dv)=quodcunque denotes that this 
activity had various modes of expression and 
made itself felt in different directions. On épyd- 
ζεσθαι εἰς, ef. Matth. xxvi. 10. 

And that strangers.—Kai τοῦτο, as in 1 Cor. 
vi. 6; Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 28, is not different in 
point of sense from καὶ εἰς τοὺς ξένους : and that= 
this too for (towards) strangers. This additional 
particular shows that the brethren were unknown 
and strangers, and acknowledges and praises the 
hospitality of Gaius as more liberal and not con- 


fined merely to brethren personally known to 
him. On the importance of @/Aogevia, ef. Heb. xiii. 
2; Rom. xii.18; 1 Tim. iii-2; Tit.i.8; 1P.et.iv. 9. 

Ver. 6. Who have testified to thy love 
before the Church,—0? ἐμαρτύρησαν are the 
strange brethren; not only some of their number 
singled out (de Wette). ᾿Ενώπιον τῆς ἐκκλησίας 
denotes the Church where the Apostle was at the 
time of writing (Grotius, Huther, Diisterdieck 
al.), before which they gave an account of their 
experience [on their missionary journey—M. ], 
like in Acts xiv. 27, and made mention of the 
love of Gaius. Bengel’s ‘‘publice ‘commemoraban- 
tur exempla ad hortandum” goes too far. 


Whom thou shalt do well to conduct 
(forward) worthily of God.—The reading: 
οὗς καλῶς ποιήσεις προπέμψας is established; the 
Future with the part. aor. is difficult. The Future 
is simple and clear; Gaius will do well; we must 
not construe it, with Huther, as Putir. exactum. 
For at Mark xiii. 18, the being saved (σωθήσεται) 
does not take place until after the enduring is 
accomplished (ὃ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος). Cf. Winer, 
p- 306, where only the part. aor. carries the force 
of the futur. exact. But the action of Gaius is not 
finished until he has accomplished the providing 
and speeding forward of the brethren; this is 
the sense of the part. aor. In such a connection 
the Future indicates a certain expectation, not 
without the direction softened by the Future, 
even as the ὀφείλομεν, v. 8, is morata formula hor- 
tandi (Bengel). It is more allowable to see here 
with Luther, a vagueness of expression than to 
venture with Ebrard on the correction ἐποίησας. 
As καλῶς qualifies ποιεῖν (Acts x. 83; Phil. iv. 14), 
so ἀξίως τοῦ ϑεοῦ qualifies προπέμπειν, to fit out 
for a journey (Tit. iii. 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 11); ina 
manner worthy of God [whose messengers they 
are-—M.], with all care and love (Liicke); the 
viaticum (Grotius), commeatus (Bengel), will not 
be wanting; but this is not all. Cf. 1 Thess. ii. 
ΠΤ Col. i 10: 

Ver. 7. For they went forth on behalf of 
the name. —’Eé7Afav; the reason why they 
went forth is intimated by ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος, as 
in Acts v. 41, on behalf of the name of Christ, ef. 
Jas. ii. 7, even for the purpose of preaching it, 
as in Rom. i. 6, so that they went forth as mis- 
sionaries, as in Acts xv. 40 (Liicke, Huther, Diis- 
terdieck and others). Hence the reference is 
neither to the name of God, which would require 
αὐτοῦ, and then to be referred back to τοῦ ϑεοῦ, 
y. 6, nor only to the Christian religion, and least 
of all to the name of the brethren who were 
called missionaries (Paulus). The connection of 
ἐξῆλθαν with ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνικῶν is untenable (Beza, 
Bengel, al.), which belongs to λαμβάνοντες. 

Receiving nothing from the heathens.— 
The Part. Pres. with μηδὲν denotes the maxim of 
the missionaries not to receive any support from 
the heathens (Huther, Diisterdieck), agreeably to 
Matth. x. 8. The Mathematical astrologers and 
thaumaturgs did, on the contrary, make a busi- 
ness of religious affairs. But compare also the 
practice of St. Paul (1 Cor. ix. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 7, 
sqq.; Xii. 16, sqq., 1 Thess. ii. 9, sqq.), although he 
might not take any thing from the younger 
Churches. On the construction of λαμβάνειν ἀπὸ, 
cf. Matth. xvii. 25, and Winer, p. 388, note 1. 


198 


THE THIRD EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


Ver. 8. We therefore ought to receive 
such persons.—In contrast to τῶν ἐϑνικῶν the 
Apostle begins with: ἡμεῖς οὖν [οὖν because they 
receive nothing from the heathens, therefore we, 
etc.—M.]. The communicative Plural denotes 
the general Christian duty to take part in mis- 
sions; hence ὀφείλομεν. There is a fine play on 
the word ὑπολαμβάνειν after μηδὲν λαμβάνοντες ; 
elegans antanaclasis (Carpzov). According to 
Strabo’s definition: οἱ εὔποροι τοὺς ἐνδεεῖς ὑπο- 
λαμβάνουσι, this word implies both the προπέμ- 
mew (v. 6), and the λαμβάνειν εἰς οἰκίαν (2 Jno. 10). 


That we may become fellow-workers 
(for) the truth.—The purpose (iva) is a noble 
one, viz. to serve the truth and work for it. Th® 
Dative τῇ ἀληϑείᾳ denotes the object to which the 
work of the missionaries is devoted; we should 
become the assistants and fellow-workers of the 
missionaries; σὺν also refers back to τοιούτους, 
not to τῇ ἀληϑείᾳ as Luther, Bengel and Besser 
allege. Our view is also held by Brickner, Hu- 
ther, Diisterdieck. Cf. Col. iv. 11: συνεργοὶ εἰς 
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ; 1 Thess. 111. 2; συνεργὸν 
ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ; 2 Cor. viii. 23: εἰς ὑμᾶς. 

Complaint of a hostile person. vv. 9, 10. 


Ver. 9. Iwrote somewhat to the Church. 
-- Ἔγραψα designates a lost Epistle; τὸ does not 
imply that the writing was specially important, 
but brief, he wrote somewhat (Liicke, Huther, 
Diisterdieck), the writing was not particularly 
valuable [nothing is said one way or another, 
τί leaves the matter quite indefinite and merely 
imports that he had written somewhat—M. ]. 
The reference here cannot be to the first Epistle 
(Wolf, Stier al.), or to the second, for they con- 
tain not the remotest allusion to the relations 
here specified. Diotrephes might have withheld it 
from the Church (Huther).—The Church to 
which he had written (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ), is that of 
which Gaius was a member, who was to correct 
and repair the injuries done by Diotrephes (vv. 
5-8, 11). Hence it is wrong to hold with Ben- 
gel (‘‘ilius loci, ex quo exierunt. Occupatio: ne 
Cajus dicat, cur itur ad nos ?”’), with whom Besser 
agrees, that the reference here is to the Church 
from which the missionaries went forth. 


But he who loveth to be foremost 
among them, Diotrephes, doth not re- 
ceive us.—We have no particulars concerning 
Diotrephes; it neither may be affirmed nor de- 
nied that he was a presbyter or deacon of the 
Church. But φιλοπρωτείων renders it more im- 
probable than probable. It is a pure conjecture 
to describe him as an opponent of the Jewish 
Christians (Grotius), or as a gnostic or judaistic 
false teacher; he was ambitiosus; this is known. 
Schol. I. defines φιλοπρωτείων thus: ὁ ὑφαρπάζων 
τὰ πρωτεῖα.----Αὐτῶν is taken from ἐκκλησία, [the 
collective noun—M.], and designates the mem- 
bers of the Church who, as Huther supposes, 
were wont to meet at his house. ᾿᾿πιδέχεσϑαι 
εἡμᾶς signifies to receive us; hence not: to ac- 
knowledge our Epistles and exhortations (de 
Lyra, Grotius, Liicke, de Wette and al. ).—Huther 
Ist ed. [corrected in the 2d—M.]. In not com- 
plying with the directions given in the Apostle’s 
Epistle, Diotrephes virtually delined to receive 
the Apostle himself (vy. 10). 


Ver. 10, Therefore, if I come, I will 
bring to remembrance the works which 
he doeth.—With διὰ τοῦτο the Apostle bases his 
coming and censure on the refractory conduct of 
Diotrephes. On ἐὰν ἔλϑω see 1 Jno. ii. 28. That 
it would take place soon is indicated by εὐϑέως, 
y. 14. It is not necessary to supply αὐτὸν (Hu- 
ther), or ἐκκλησίαν (Paulus) after ὑπομνήσω; the 
Accusative of the person which is added in Jno. 
xiv. 26; Tit. iii. 1 is also wanting in 2 Tim. ii. 
14.—It was the Apostle’s intention to censure 
not only Diotrephes, who was not singular in his 
reprehensible conduct, but had a friendly party 
backing him. Bede: ‘Jn omnium notitiam mant- 
festius arguendo producam.”’ Although the con- 
nection requires us to understand the feature of 
censure (de Lyra: puniam, Bengel: notabo, ut 
sentiat, animadvertam), the idea of an instructive 
calling to mind is by all means to be retained; 
the censure lies in the matter being mentioned 
and that publicly. Αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα, ἃ ποιεῖ are the 
object of ὑπομιμνήσκειν, and these consist in the 
sequel, viz. : 

Prating against us with wicked words. 
—On λόγοις πονηροῖς see 2 Jno. 11; 1 Jno. iii. 12. 
They were slanderous words calculated to lower 
and detract from the Apostle’s influence, but idle, 
worthless tattle, untenable falsehoods; hence 
φλυαρῶν, ‘apposite calumnias Diotrephis vocat gar- 
ritum’’ (& Lapide); the intransitive verb has a 
transitive reference to ἡμᾶς taken from the λόγοις 
πονηροῖς ; a similar construction may be seen in 
μαθητεύω, Matth. xxviii. 19; ϑριαμβεύω, Col. ii, 
15 (properly nugari, cf. i. Tim. v. 138.) 

And not contented with this.—’Apxeic- 
Yat with the Dative only, occurs at Luke iii. 14; 
Heb. xiii. 5 instead of ἐπὶ τούτοις ; μὴ ἀρκούμενος 
with φλυαρεῖν against the Apostles, he wrongs 
the missionary brethren in two ways, viz.: 

Neither doth he himself receive the 
brethren.—Oire followed by xai is of frequent 
occurence, see Winer p. 516, 7. Αὐτὸς answers 
to βουλομένους. ᾿Επιδέχεσϑαι signifies literally to 
receive, to entertain hospitably, 2 Jno. 10. The 
reference is to the ἀδελφοί mentioned vy. 7. 

But also, those who would do it, he 
hindereth.—There was consequently no lack 
of well-disposed Church-members; but he κωλύει 
by force, imperiousness, cunning tricks and 
speeches. 

And casteth out of the Church.— Ex(a- 
Aew ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας May signify: to excommuni- 
cate, but according to the context also to turn 
out of the local congregation. In the latter case 
κωλύει and ἐκβάλλει would have the same object; 
but in the former ἀδελφοί would be the object 
with αὐτούς understood. The former, adopted 
by Diisterdieck on account of the meaning of the 
word and the construction, seems to be improb- 
able, because excommunication in a case which 
had no reference to false doctrine or immorality 
of life, would be immoderate and unheard of, 
and hardly conceivable at that time. But it 
might be possible that Diotrephes was wont to 
hold, or caused to be held, the meetings of the 
Church in his own house, and refused admittance 
to those who were opposed to him; but that 
would not be an excommunication. Huther, who 
maintains the other view, seems to enter more 


7 VERSES 2-12. 


fully into the circumstances hinted at, and to 
avoid untenable conjectures. 

Exhortation and Commendation. vy. 11, 12. 

Ver. 11. Beloved; peculiarly emphatic as 
following what goes before. 1 Jno. iv. 1, 7, 11. 

Imitate not evil but good.—On μὴ μιμοῦ 
see Hebr. xiii. 7; 2 Thess. iii. 7, 9; Eph. v. 1. 
Τὸ κακόν in Diotrephe, Td ἀγαϑόν in Demetrio 
(Bengel). De Wette erroneously asserts that the 
diction here is ‘‘uwnjohannean,” for we have ra 
ἔργα πονηρὰ and δίκαια in 1 Jno. 111. 12; τὸ κακόν 
in Jno. xviii. 23; τὰ ἀγαϑά and τὰ φαῦλα in Jno. 
γ. 29: the diction is generally biblical, 1 Pet. 11]. 
10. 11. 

He that doeth good, is (out) of God.—Cf. 
1 Jno. iii. 10. Ὁ ἀγαϑοποιῶν is general, as be- 
fore (1 Pet. ii. 14; xv. 20; iii. 6,17); a Lapide, 
Grotius, Paulus and al. erroneously apply and 
restrict this expression to benevolence and hos- 
pitality. 

He that doeth evil, hath not seen God.— 
It is inconceivable how Liicke and de Wette can 
call this expression ‘‘uwnjohannean,” considering 
that ἐκ ϑεοῦ ἐστίν with the constantly recurring 
ἐκ ϑεοῦ εἶναι (1 Jno. iv. 2, 3, 4, 6; iii. 10; v. 19) 
is manifestly ‘“‘johannean,” and that we read at. 1 
Jno. iii. 6: οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν notwithstanding the 
addition there of οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτὸν, and at 1 Jno, 
iv. 8: οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν ϑεόν, 1 Jno. ii. 8: ἐγνώκαμεν 
auTov. 

Ver. 12. Unto Demetrius testimony hath 
been borne by all, and by the truth itself. 
—Demetrius was probably the bearer of this 
Epistle (Liicke, Diisterdieck, Huther), and John 
commends him to Gaius. Hence he cannot be 
one of the βουλόμενοι, whom Diotrephes is said to 
have hindered and excommunicated (Ebrard) ; in 
that case he would have been a member of the 
congregation to which Gaius belonged, and 
known to him. The Perfect μεμαρτύρηται denotes 
a testimony which has been given and continues 
to be valid; used absolutely, without any further 
qualification, it always denotes a good testimony 
(Acts vi. 3; x. 22; xvi. 2, etc.). In ὑπὸ πάντων 
the reference is to Christians; for the matter in 
question bears on the Christian excellence of De- 
metrius (Liicke); the restriction to those who 
knew him, is self-evident, and hence otherwise 
than in 2 Jno. 1. Limiting it to the brethren 
vy. 5, 7, 10 (Ebrard), or extending it to Jews and 
Gentiles (Oecumenius), cannot be done: there is 
nothing to warrant either construction; the 
former would require a further qualification, the 
latter is limited to his congregation by the con- 
text.—Kai ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληϑείας imports a per- 
sonified and independent testimony running par- 
allel with that of the πάντες, equal to it, real, and 
the truth itself giving that testimony. Hence 
we cannot agree with the explanation of Huther 
who thinks that the Apostle wanted to give 
prominence to the circumstance that the good 
testimony of all was not founded on their human 
judgment, in the testimony of the ἀλήθεια dwelling 
in them, and refers to Jno. xy. 26, 27. There the 
truth does not bear testimony concurrent with, 
and outside of the πάντες, but in them and out of 
themselves. We ought rather to think with 
Diisterdieck of the walk and conversation of De- 
metrius, in which the ἀλήθεια dwelling in him, 
shows itself as vital and bearing testimony to 


199 


him; he is an image of the truth, which is per- 
sonified in him, in his walk and nature. It is 
not sufficient to think here only of the res ipsa, or 
res ips, the reality (a Lapide, Grotius, Beauso- 
bre); the Divine Truth is the witness here. 
[Alford reproducing, and, as so often, improving 
on Diisterdieck: ‘The objective Truth of God, 
which is the Divine rule of the walk of all be- 
lievers, gives a good testimony to him, who really 
walks in the truth. This witness lies in the ac- 
cordance of his walk with the requirement of 
God’s Truth. It was the mirror in which the 
walk of Demetrius was reflected; and his form, 
thus seen in the mirror of God’s Truth, in which 
the perfect form of Christ is held up to us (1 Jno. 
ii. 6; iii. 8, 16), appeared in the likeness of 
Christ: so that the mirror itself seemed to place 
in a clear light his Christian virtue and upright- 
ness, and thus to bear witness to him.””—M. ]. 

But we also bear testimony.—John adds 
now his own testimony, as a third [and independ- 
ent testimony—M. ]; καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ makes this testi- 
mony of the Apostle very emphatic. Cf. notes on 
I ποῖ 1: 8: 

And thou knowest that our testimony 
is true.—The reference is only to the personal 
testimony of the Apostle; Grotius explains erro- 
neously: ‘‘alii, qui Ephesi sunt.” Cf. Jno. xix. 
35; xxi. 24. Gaius knows and values it as a 
true and reliable testimony ; not however because 
of the episcopal, apostolical and canonical dignity 
of John (a Lapide), but because of his personal 
truthfulness. 


ETHICAL. 


1. Outward prosperity, and more especially 
physical health, are of sufficient value to become 
the objects of a Christian wish in the form of in- 
tercession, but must always be subordinated to 
the health, or rather by Divine grace to the re- 
covery of the soul walking in the truth of God. 
A parallel passage is 2 Cor. xii. 7 (σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί) 
ef. v. J—(apkel σοι ἡ χάρις μου, ἡ yap δύναμις ἐν 
ἀσθενείᾳ τελεῖται). 

2. The greatest joy of the servants of Christ 
is, not to labour in vain in their congregations, 
though they labour for nothing (v. 4). 

3. Participation in the work of missions is the 
sacred duty of individuals (vv. 5—8) as well as 
of Churches (vy. 10), and a life-token of the truth 
in them (vy. 8, 11). Missionaries are objects of 
Christian love. 

4. Ambition destroys the efficiency and posi- 
tion of men, so that they not only work evil 
themselves, but also hinder good. 

5. Church-visitation is an official work, de- 
rived from the Apostolical Church. 

6. We should look to and ,imitate in our walk 
and conversation those who have a good testi- 
mony in truth, not those who err and commit 
sin. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Compare Ethical.—Health is the foundation of 
all human activity. A sickly man cannot even 
think healthily. Men would be surprised, if they 
were able to take such a survey, to find how many 
of the things which have filled the world with 
feuds and laden with errors, may be traced back 


200 


THE THIRD EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN. 


to a disordered stomach. Who would go to sea 
in a leaky vessel? 

Srarke:—Christians should bless and greet 
one another, wish one another good, pray for one 
another, so that all of us may be benefited.— 
There is none so weak but that he may be of use 
to others; though it be done only by wishing and 
praying, yet it isa great service.—A faithful 
teacher may be known by this token, that he re- 
joices over the spiritual growth of his hearers and 
others, and thanks God for it.—The evangelical 
truth is not still, it walks and causes those to 
walk who have it.—The natural life is not con- 
cluded with one step; sure, the spiritual life isa 
constant progression unto death.—Preachers 
have anxiety and toil in their ministry, they meet 
with hatred and envy, opposition and persecution, 
mockery and derision, but their joy in the fruits 
of their labour overcomes all the rest.—Would 
that all evangelical ministers might become zeal- 
ous and imitators of the holy men of God, who 
have faithfully performed the work of the Lord. 
Let every one be of good cheer and courage in 
the discharge of his duty and he will be exalted 
to their society in heaven.—He who seeks only 
temporal and transitory things in the ministry is 
an antichrist and brings shame on the name of 
Christ.—It is very injurious to the course of the 
Gospel, if its servants seek only their own advan- 
tage; this makes more atheists than Christians. 
—Those who while exhorting others to the prac- 
tice of godliness, include themselves, not only set 
a higher value on their exhortation, but also ren- 
der it more telling and efficacious.—Those who re- 
ceive the servants of Christ, receive Himself. 
Should we then not eagerly long to receive Him 
in His members? He will richly pay for His 
entertainment.—He that is of the truth and loves 
the truth must seek to further it in every possi- 
ble way; this is the mark of a true one.—Be not 
surprised if thou findest no room with the clear 
truth among false teachers and prophets; for 
Christ Himself and His Apostles did not find it.— 
When loose talkers have exhausted words and 
proofs, they forthwith have recourse to detrac- 
tion, slander and abuse.—Devilish malice—not to 
do good yourself and actually to hinder others 
who would do good.—False teachers are opposed 
to the children of God and avoid their company; 
but this very course shows plainly that they are 
not the children of God.—Heretics and false 
teachers foster not only errors of the understand- 
ing, but these are also allied to perversity anda 
malicious will.—The knowledge of the letter [of 
the Scriptures], is vastly remote from illumina- 


tion.—He who does not see God by faith here, 
will not see Him in glory hereafter.—Benefits 
which have been shown to us, should be publicly 
acknowledged. 

Hevuspner:—Here we are reminded of the double. 
health. How rarely do we ask after the health 
of the soul: it is thought unbecoming, and yet it 
is the most important matter.—Let the sick in 
body be specially anxious for the health of the 
soul (2 Cor. iv. 16).—Spiritual paternal joys may 
compensate us for the want of bodily ones (2 
Cor. i. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 19).—Where do we now 
find a congregation interested in the spiritual 
condition of another congregation ?—The exhibi- 
tion of love to the messengers of the Gospel, is a 
duty we owe to the Gospel itself. Such love 
exalts the praise of Christianity and of the 
Church.—Diotrephes probably turned them away 
as vagabonds. There were of course those who 
went begging in the name of the Gospel, idle 
begging brothers [ Grussbriider], like the μητρα- 
yiprac among the heathen went begging in the 
name of Mother Cybele.—The hatred of strange, 
calling and yisiting Christians which is also 
found among clergymen, proceeds from a secret, 
wicked malice; they do not want strangers to 
i ae acquainted with the condition of their 
congregation, or to bring the Gospel which they 
themselves do lack; they are afraid of being 
eclipsed and of having their credit impaired (1 
Thess. ii. 16).—Demetrius is so faithful and 
simple that the truth itself commends him in 
speaking forth from him. This is the best com- 
mendation, which we can have through ourselves 
and through faith (2 Cor. i. 12).—You cannot 
give a testimonial to others, unless you have out 
of themselves [7. e., from their life and conversa- 
tion.—M. ] a testimony of the truth. 

Besser:—Hospitality was a conspicuous virtue 
of the first Christians, and St. Paul enumerates 
it among the qualities of an unblamable bishop 
(1 Tim. iii. 8; Tit. 1. 8). Every parsonage, yea, 
every Christian house was a home to travellers, 
where expelled brethren, or brethren travelling 
as evangelists met with hospitable welcome.— 
Instead of causing his name (Diotrephes, one 
nursed by Jupiter, the great mythological god 
of the heathen) to be mistaken and of becoming 
a Theotrephes, one nursed by God, he continued 
in the captivity of the love of the world.—The 
elder would not have admonished a confirmed 
obdurate man.—When a Diotrephes desired to be 
highly esteemed, a John had to be little esteemed. 
Where it is impossible to obey the law of God, 
there we ought not to be possible. 


THE CONCLUSION. 


vy. 18, 14. 


13 


14 But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face.’ 
Greet the friends’ by name.* 


Our friends® salute thee. 


1A. B.C. Cod. Sin. read: γράψαι σοι. 
2B. C. Cod. Sins οὐ θέλω. 
οὐκ ἤθελον formed after it. 


thee. 
Verse 13. 


I had many things to write,’ but I will? not with ink and pen write’ unto thee: 


Peace be to 


The reading οὐκ €BovAy7Onv.in A. originated from 2 Jno. 12, and like 


VERSES 13, 14. 


201 


a SSESSSSSSSSSSMSMSSSsmsmsmmmMssses 


3 B.C. Cod. Sins cot γράφειν; A: 


γράφειν σοι. 


* German: “1 should have much to write unto thee, but I will not write unto thee with ink and pen.”—M.] 
Verse 14. [5 German: “ But I hope soon to see thee, and we shall speak mouth to mouth.”—M. 
δ B. 6. α΄. K. Cod. Sin. read: φίλοι; A. ἀδελφοί. (German: “The friends salute thee.”—M.] 
7 Several*unimportant Codd. read adeAgovs instead of φίλους. 
8G. inserts ἀμήν .--Οὶ. B.Cod. Sin. have the subscription: "Iwavvov y. The usual additions occur 
here and there, but are not sufficiently authenticated. 


EXEGETICAL AND ORITICAL. 


Close of the Epistle. vv. 18, 14. 

Ver. 13. I should have much to write to 
thee.—Ilo/Ad, emphatic, placed first. The Im- 
perfect εἶχον without av, is idiomatic Greek and 
must be rendered in the Subjunctive in German. 
See Winer p. 283 sqq.; [The objection to the 
rendering of Τὰ. V. “41 had many things to write” 
is that the Apostle does not advert to the past 
but to the present. So Huther 2d ed. ‘I should 
have much to write” brings out this shade of 
thought in English.—M. ]. 

But I will not write unto thee with ink 
and pen.—Cf. 2 Jno. 12. 

Ver. 14. But I hope, soon to see thee.— 
The contrast to writing, for which the Apostle 
has no further inclination (Diisterdieck), is oral 
intercourse which he hopes soon to realize. 

And we shall speak mouth to mouth.— 
The Future λαλήσομεν denotes the assurance of 
hope. The object is πολλὰ v. 13, and the par- 
ticulars indicated in the Epistle. 

Greetings ν. 14. 

Ver. 14. Peace be to thee.—The greeting 
of the Apostle to the beloved Gaius. As at the 
beginning of the Epistle the simple χαίρειν is not 
sufficient for the fulness of the Christian greet- 
ing, so at the close the common ἔῤῥωσο (Acts 
xxiii. 30; xv. 29) is displaced by richer and 
deeper forms. There the wish of peace is most 
appropriate (Gal. vi. 16; Eph. vi. 23; 1 Pet. v. 
14; 2 Thess. iii. 16; Rom. xv. 38 and al.), be- 
cause peace may be regarded as the sum-total of 
the Divine gifts of grace in Christ (Luke. ii. 4; 
Jno. xiv. 27) as N. de Lyra correctly explains it: 
“Pax interna conscientix, pax fraterna amicitiz, 
pax superna glorie” (Dusterdieck). [Alford: 
‘Remember our Lord’s legacy, Jno. xiv. 27; 
and His greeting after the resurrection, εἰρήνη 
ὑμῖν, Jno. xx. 19, 26.” ].—Joy moreover is health 
of the soul. 

The friends salute thee.—Bengel: ‘Rara 
in N. T. appellatio, absorpta majori fraternitatis. 
Errant philosophi, qui putant amicitiam non in- 
strui a fide.” Jno. xv. 15. The expression suits 


a purely private Epistle, written on purely per- 
sonal relations (Liicke). Bede: ‘‘Amicis gratiam 
pacis mandat et salutis et per hee Diotrephen cete- 
rosque veritatis inimicos a salute et pace vestra 
monstrat extraneos.” Among the ἀδελφοί, which 
are generally saluted (Phil. iv. 21; 1 Cor. xvi. 
20; Eph. vi. 23), John, according to 2 Jno. 9-11, 
probably included Diotrephes, because he acted 
only as an ambitiosus, but does not seem to have 
been wrong and erred in the doctrine of Christ’s 
incarnation; but he and his party were not 
φίλοι to the Apostle, like Gaius and Demetrius. 
Cf. Jno. xi. 11; Acts xxvii. 3. 

Greet the friends by name.—Ka7’ ὄνομα--:- 
ὀνομαστί (Jno. x. 8); Bengel: ‘Non secus ac si 
nomina eorum prescripta essent.”’ The greetings, 
and especially those by name, have so deep an 
import and so great a value, that Paul fills a 
whole chapter of his Epistle to the Romans (ch. 
xvi. 1-24) with them, and often adds a series. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


STaRKE:—It is not advisable to confide every 
thing to the pen; many things may be better 
and more effectively stated orally than in 
writing.—It is not a small benefit, if the chil- 
dren of God may visit each other and delight in 
friendly conversation.—We are in the company 
of the holy men of God whenever we hear or 
read their writings. 

HrvuBNER:—We see, how even letters of friend- 
ship are hallowed by faith. Everything should 
have the impress of our evangelical frame of 
mind. A mind wholly penetrated by the spirit 
of Christianity will not deny itself even in un- 
important letters of friendship. Examples may 
be seen in Sailer’s Christian letters of every 
century, in the letters of Luther, Tersteegen and 
John Newton.—The children of peace receive 
peace (Luke x. 5, 6). 

Besser :—John greets the friends by name; he 
carries them all in his heart, and every one in 
particular. This is presbyter-fidelity.— 

[WorpswortH:—The good pastor imitates 
that Good Shepherd, who ‘‘calleth His sheep by 
name.” Jno. x, 3.—M.]. 


eae aN, AVAL AS Cate ak Saal, μὰ 
7! δ μι ποτα των τω A We , i. ais é 


a en ΩΝ τ Δ sete) PPh ch Me ee ᾿ it ne ; 
Cia sid alicia Fea Ga ey Cv, aA ee Ml Naa ηρ ERA an a heyy : 
¥ ἴ ᾿ . 1 as ᾿ ‘ > oe 
f i) ah ἢ yo Lad Ἂν , ᾽ “4 ir hb ᾿ 
ie, ᾿ Γ Ὁ oe see 
τ Re) We Maa aap il 
ΣΝ ᾿ 
Ἵ “, 
‘ ie " 4 4 - 
Ψ ’ 
ewe ok a : 
¢ — » I 
“ον 4 ¢ 
᾿ i ane ᾿ 
PT ἢ" ἐν ν 7 ed 
A ~ μ ee 


r . Ν 4 ‘ ἢ 
via y Ce ee) Pa ae ΠΝ ἣν. ‘ 
1 
y i Pe ay Pes 4 ad HTS 
vy We Ὧ ἣν > rs, ΜῊ 
a ᾿ δὲ 7 Ν 
ν ὦ ῳᾳ , 
tar a ! ᾿ 
HY ical μὰν, ἘΧΜ ἈΝ " ἀν: i 
yy Pha = " Leen τὺ ΤΟΥ ἐς “ΣΝ ; 0 τ AM iv ben: ᾿ 
iy ᾿ εὐ a Ἰ 7) oe Th ¥ δὴ 
μον μεν icing | 7 
, ant Ay ad a hares te acy! 
7 54 / 
y ΄ is 7 
4 
. y 4, ‘ 
we ᾿ 
ua 
: ven 
‘ ψ 
- . A 7 


᾿ — « 
\ Δ ia ~~ 
ry im a ᾿ Ὥ A sah ᾿ 


" πον 


‘ink oh ie Peat 


THE 


EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


BY 


vi fe . 
G. F. C. FRONMULLER, Ph. D., 


PASTOR AT KEMNATH, WURTEMBERG. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND REVISED GERMAN EDITION, WITH 
ADDITIONS ORIGINAL AND SELECTED, 


BY 


J. ISIDOR MOMBERT, D.D., 


RECTOR OF ST. JAMES’S CHURCH, LANCASTER, PA. 


NEW YORK: 
CHARLES SCRIBNER, & CO., 654 BROADWAY. 
1867. 


ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867, by 
CHARLES SCRIBNER, 


In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District 
of New York. 


Stereotyped by 


JAS. B. RODGERS, 
PHILADELPHIA, 


ΠΡ  . ῚΣ - 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


INTRODUCTION. 


21. CONTENTS AND ARRANGEMENT. 


Tux salutation and prayer of blessing in vv. 1. 2 is followed by a statement of the occasion and 
design of the Epistle, v. 3. The author’s object is to exhort his readers to contend for the faith 
delivered unto them, against the daring perversions of deceivers, v. 4—Parr 1., v. 5-16. The 
first section calls to mind the punitive justice of God, as illustrated by three leading examples, 
the first in the judgment on Israel (v. 5), the second in that on fallen angels (v. 6), and the third 
in that on the Gentiles in Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7). The second section (v. 8-16) gives a 
more particular account of the deceivers and evil-doers referred to in general terms in v. 4; they 
exhibit the following characteristics: a. they defile the flesh ; b. despise dominions; 6. and blas- 
pheme the majesties with fearful daring and blindness, vv. 8-10; they are compared to Cain, 
Balaam and Korah, and a woe is uttered on them, v. 11; their traits, one ever exceeding the 
other in detestableness, are then enumerated, vv. 12. 16. 19, with a parenthetical application to 
them of Enoch’s ancient prophecy of the judgment, vv. 14.15. Their voluptuousness, sensual- 
ity, selfishness, discontent, flattery, their spirit of murmuring and pride, their separating from 
the faith of the Church, and their gross carnality are described in the next place—Parr IL, 
from ν. 17, contains exhortations: a. to mindfulness of the words of the Apostles foretelling the’ 
appearance of such deceivers and scoffers, vv. 17. 18; ὁ. to a firm foundation and continuance 
in the love of God, with constant prayer, and confident hope of the coming of Christ, vy. 20. 21; 
c. to loving compassion on the deceived, yet with hatred of evil, vv. 22. 23; and concludes with 
a doxology to God, which includes a strong consolation. 


22. THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE. 


1. As to ancient testimony, we find that the Epistle had been received into the Canon of Scrip- 
ture in the fourth century. Jerome acknowledges its genuineness, but observes that in conse- 
quence of a quotation from the apocryphal book of Enoch, it was rejected by most—their rejec- 
tion of it was consequently not on objective, historical grounds. [The words of Jerome in Catal., 
s. v. Judas are: “Judas, frater Jacobi, parvam quidam, que se septem catholicis est, eprstolam 
reliquit. Ht quia de Enocho, qui apocryphus est, in ea assumit testimoniwm, a plerisque rejicit- 
ur; tamen auctoritatem vetustate et jam usu merutt, et inter sanctas scriptwras computatur.”— 
M.] Eusebius classes it with the Antilegomena, and adds that although many of the ancients 
did not mention it, it was nevertheless publicly used in most Churches. Origen refers to it in 
respectful terms [Comm, in Matt. xii. 55. 56, t. x., @ 17, “Jude wrote an Epistle of but few 
verses, yet fitted with vigorous words of heavenly grace’—M.], quotes it repeatedly, and only in 


4 THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


one place implies doubts as to its genuineness. [Comm. in Matt. xxii. 23. t. xii, 3 30, “if in- 
deed the Epistle of Jude be received.”—-M.] It is mentioned in the old Muratorian fragment 
[eirea A. D. 170, which reads: “ Hpistola sane Jude et superscripti Johannis duce in Catholicd 
(Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic., I., 152, reads “ Catholicis”) habentur.”—M.]. Clement of Alexan- 
dria commented on it, and expressly ascribed it to Jude. Tertullian says: “Enoch possesses a 
testimony in Jude the Apostle;” and Origen also calls him an Apostle in two places. Guerike, 
Neutest. Isagogik, p. 454. It is wanting in the old Syriac Peshito (but not in the MS. in the 
Bodleian Library at Oxford), Huther, p. 189. The testimony of the Fathers does not go further 
back. [* It is also quoted by Ephrem Syrus as Apostolic (Opp. Syr., 1., p. 136); by Malchian, a 
presbyter of Antioch, in a letter to the bishops of Alexandria and Rome (Eus., H. £., vii. 30), 
and by Palladius, the friend of Chrysostom (Chrys., Opp., xiii., Dial., cc. 18. 20), and is contained 
in the Laodicene (A. Ὁ. 363), Carthaginian (397), and so-called Apostolic Catalogues, as well as 
in those emanating from the Churches of the East and West, with the exception of the synopsis 
of Chrysostom, and those of Cassiodorus and Ebed Jesu.” Venables, in Smith’s Dictionary of 
the Bible, article, Ep. of Jude—M.] The reason may lie in the shortness of the Epistle, in its 
affinity with 2 Peter, and as we shall convince ourselves, in its non-Apostolic origin. [To this must, 
be added the quotation from an apocryphal book, which it contains—M.] Summing up the testi-' 
mony, we find that it preponderates in favour of the genuineness of the Epistle. 

2. As to the internal grounds, the critics have been unable to establish any tenable objections. 
De Wette remarks that the authorship of Jude is neither affected by the use of the book of 
Enoch, nor by his probable acquaintance with the Epistle to the Romans, nor by his harsh dic- 
tion, which, nevertheless, betrays familiarity with the Greek language. Huther justly meets 
Schwegler’s superficial assumption that vy. 17. 18 assign to the Epistle a post-Apostolic date, by 
saying that those verses by no means point to post-Apostolic times, for they rather suppose the 
readers of the Epistle to have heard the preaching of the Apostles, and that if, as Schwegler far- 
ther assumes, the Epistle was designed to serve the interests of Judaism against Paulinism, it 
ought certainly to appear somehow in the Kpistle; a forger, moreover, would hardly have as- 
_ eribed his writing to a man of such little prominence as this Jude. Although we must not at- 
tach undue importance to the arguments drawn from the silence of the Epistle, the circumstance, 
brought forward by Bertholdt, Guerike, Stier and al., that the author of the Epistle does not re- 
fer to the destruction of Jerusalem, is certainly worthy of great consideration; “if,” says Stier, 
“the Epistle had not been written before the destruction of Jerusalem, this last, and next to the 
flood (which is only alluded to) most terrible of all the judgments and punitive examples of God, 
could not have been passed over in silence.” The objections of Hofmann and Huther to this in- 
ference do not amount to much; more important would be the objection that a forger who did 
make mention of the judgment passed on Jerusalem, would not have been an adept at his trade. 
The former reason, in conjunction with other reasons, is at all events of considerable weight. 
The Epistle breathes forth a strictly moral spirit, it glows with zeal against error and vice, with 
loving care for the salvation of souls, and a profound reverence of God and His word. It is, 
therefore, every way worthy to have originated with a primitive Christian man, who stood so 
nearly related to the Lord. Cf. Herzog’s Real Encycl., art. Judas —[Alford, Greek Test., IV., 447, 
well characterizes the main body of.the Epistle as an impassioned invective, in the impetuous 
whirlwind of which, the writer is hurried along, collecting example after example of Divine ven- 
geance on the ungodly, heaping epithet upon epithet, and piling image upon image, and, as it 
were, labouring for words and images strong enough to depict the polluted character of the li- 
centious apostates against whom he is warning the Church; returning again and again to the 
subject, as though all language were insufficient to give an adequate idea of their profligacy, 
and to express his burning hatred of their perversion of the doctrines of the Gospel—M.]— We 
must not suffer our judgment to be affected by the use of the apocryphal book of Enoch, of the 
tradition of Enoch and the ascensio Mosis, seeing that Paul also names the Egyptian magicians 
Jannes and Jambres, although nothing is said of them in the historical books of the Old Testa- 
ment, 2 Tim. iii. 8; but rather admire the reserve with which the author of our Epistle uses the 
book of Enoch, which contains so much that is fantastic, and recognize in that reserve a leading 
of the Divine Spirit. Besides its decided dependence on the Second Hpistle of Peter, the Epistle 


22. THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE. 5 


of Jude contains many original traits, striking comparisons, 6. g., vv. 12. 18, characteristic delin- 
eation in few words, v. 19, wise and thoughtful exhortations, vv. 20-23. In proof of the author’s 
originality, it must be mentioned that the twenty-five verses of this Epistle contain not less than 
eighteen ἅπαξ λεγόμενα, vv. 3. 4. 7. 10. 11. 12. 18. 15. 17.19. 28. The author calls himself, v. 1, 
the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James.—Jude, as was shown in the Introduction to 
the Second Epistle of Peter, makes use of Peter’s Epistle and acknowledges his entire dependence 
on him, cf. Jude 18. While Peter describes himself twice as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and 
strengthens the weight of his exhortations by his Apostolic authority, Jude confines himself to 
the simple expression, “8 servant of Jesus Christ.” While Peter writes, ‘be mindful of the com- 
mandment of us, the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour” (2 Pet. 11. 2), Jude says: “remember 
the words which were spoken before of the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ Jude 17. This 
affords striking proof that we must not look among the Apostles for the author of our Epistle.* 
He is, therefore, not Judas Lebbeeus or Thaddeus, who is mentioned Jno. xiv. 22; Matt. x. ὃ; 


Mk. 11. 18, and is called twice Judas Jacobi, Lke. vi. 16; Acts 1.13; Lebbeeus, from oy, , and 
PL haddeus, \F\=breast, are identical in meaning, and a comparison of the lists of the Apostles 


shows that Judas Jacobi is identical with Judas Lebbeus or Thaddeus. Although grammatic- 
aliy Judas Jacobi may also signify Judas, brother of James (Winer, pp. 218, 667), that construc- 
tion is inadmissible in this connection, because in the Genitives used in the lists of the Apostles, 
we have invariably to supply son, not brother. Jude, the Apostle, was consequently a son of 
James, while our Jude was not an Apostle, and’ calls nimself the brother of James. ᾿Αδελφός 
cannot well be taken here in another sense, there being no occasion whatever to render it cousin. 
But who are these two brothers Jude and James? James, the Apostle, the brother of John, 
cannot be meant here, for he was early martyred (Acts xii. 2), and probably had no brother be- 
sides John (Matt. iv. 21; xx. 20; xxvi. 37; xxvu. 56; Mk. i. xix. 20); nor can it be James the 
son of Alpheeus, called the Little, of whose person and work we have no certain data, cf. Mk. 
xv. 40. He must be a well-known individual, doubtless the much revered head of the Church 
at Jerusalem, besides whom history knows no other distinguished man of that name. According 
to Hegesippus (2d century), in Eusebius (7. Z., 3, 19. 20), the emperor Domitian persecuted 
two grandsons of Jude, who was called a brother of Jesus according to the flesh, and had a 
‘brother named James. The same author mentions (Euseb., 2, 23) a James, a brother of the Lord, 
who along with the Apostles was the head of the Church at Jerusalem, and bore the surname 
“the Just,” cf. ch. 1.12; 11.1. The passage ch. iv. 22 is exegetically difficult, and perhaps to be 
interpreted by ch. 1. 23. Josephus informs us that the high-priest Ananus caused James, a 
brother of the so-called Christ, to be stoned (A. 1). 62) and describes him as an altogether just 
men. The Fathers call him straightway bishop of Jerusalem; so Eusebius, Jerome, Nicephorus. 
See Winer, p. 525. The ancient Church, therefore, considered the Jude and the James here re- 
ferred to, to have been the brothers of the Lord according to the flesh. How does this agree with 
the New Testament? Paul, in Gal. 1. 19, introduces James, the Lord’s brother, and evidently 
distinguishes him by that designation from the Apostle James the Less, and describes him as an 
Apostle in a wider sense, cf. 2 Cor. vii. 23; Rom. xvi. 7; Phil. 11. 25; Acts xiv. 14. Hence we 
need not be surprised that some of the Fathers, e. g., Jerome, Epiphanius and Augustine, call him 
also an Apostle. But may not adeAgé¢ here bear the sense of cousin, and relate to James, the 


* Note of Dr. Lange :—Having presented the opposite view in Comm. on Matthew, p. 255 (American edition), in the 
article, Jacobus, in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopedie, and in the work Apostol. Zeitalter, I, p. 189, we take here occasion to ob- 
serve that we consider differences of this kind in historical questions unavoidable in a Protestant Commentary on the Bi- 
ble, and quite compatible with the unity in spirit and the unity on essential questions of faith, which is assumed to belong 
to the respective contributors to this work. Without giving rise to dogmatical scruples, such differences have the tendency 
of more strongly confirming even the more practical theologian in his opinion. We rejoice that the highly esteemed au- 
thor of this section of the Commentary, besides the general blessed vocation of a beloved co-labourer, has throughout ex- 
hibited a desirable exegetical tact on many questions of this kind, 6. g.,on Christ’s preaching among the dead, in the 
First Epistle of Peter, on the fall of angels in the Second Epistle of Peter, ch. ii., and in this Epistle; and we are aware that 
he has recently found powerful support of his views in Riggenbach’s Leben Jesu, and in our dear friend Van Oosterzee’s 
Comm. on Luke, without shaking the firmness with which we hold a conviction, for which the reasons are giyenon the re- 
Rpective passages. 


2 
ὃ 


6 THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


son of Alpheus? Winer justly remarks that he could not, without confusion, have been called 
ἀδελφός, because Jesus had a brother according to the flesh of the same name. For the brothers 
and sisters of the Lord are introduced in Matt. xiii. 55; Mk. vi. 3. The names of the former 
were James, Joses, Simon and Jude, cf. 1 Cor. ix. 5; Matt. xii. 48; Jno. 11. 12; Actsi. 14. They 
are mentioned in connection with the mother of Jesus and Joseph, and are doubtless His actual 
brothers. For ἀδελφός in forty-nine passages of the New Testament signifies actwal brother, while 
the sense cousin cannot be proved in a single passage. At first they did not believe in Him as 
the Messiah, Jno. vii. 5, but after the resurrection of J esus, 1 Cor. xv. 7, and after the ascension, 
we find them forming part of the circle of believers, Acts i. 14. Among the brothers of the 
Lord, after they had become believers, James soon occupied a prominent position. He is intro- 
duced as the representative of the Jewish Christian tendency in the Mother Church, Acts xii. 17. 
His near bodily relation to the Lord, his pious life and austere habits soon raised him to Apos- 
tolical dignity. At the Apostolical Council on the obligatoriness of the law, his judgment 
proved decisive, Acts xv. 13. The council of elders gathered round him, ch. xxi. 18. Among 
the pillars of the Church, he is mentioned first (Gal. ii. 9), while otherwise Peter is the Prince of 
the Apostles. He is probably the author of the Epistle of James in the Canon; for the princi- 
ples contained therein are in exact keeping with the notices of his life, reported by the Fathers, 
and he, like Jude, describes himself, not as an Apostle, but only as a servant of God and of the 
Lord Jesus Christ (Jas. i. 1). If it be objected that Luke does not clearly distinguish the non- 
Apostolic James from the Apostle James, who is mentioned in Acts i. 13, we may answer with 
Huther that the then familiarity with all the circumstances of the case did not require such a 
distinction to be specially marked, and that the same holds good in the case of the two Philips, 
Acts i. 13; viii. 5. Wieseler’s assertion that the Church at Jerusalem would not have recognized 
as its head any other than an Apostle, cannot be substantiated by any reasons. Our Jude was 
then the brother of that revered head at Jerusalem, and with him sustained the same family re- 
lation to the Lord. His not describing himself as the Lord’s brother, like James in his Epistle, 
may have been the effect of modesty, or his sense of the spiritual relation in which he stood to 
Christ may have predominated over that of his physical relation, even as it was the case with 
our Lord Himself, Matt. xii. 48-50. Winer, Stier, Neander and al. hold that Jesus had actual 
brothers; for the opposite view, see Lange, in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopddie, Article Jacobus.— 
We have no reliable data concerning the life and work of Jude. He has generally been con- 
founded with Judas Lebbzus, as James the Just with James, the son of Alpheeus, cf. Cave, Lives, 
Acts and Martyrdoms of the Holy Apostles, p. 600, etc. [See note in Introduction to the Epistle 
of James, at the close of 31, the Introduction to James and Jude in Alford’s Greek Testament, 
Prolegomena, pp. 87,188, and on the whole subject, my article, “ Are James, the Son of Alphzus, and 
James, the Brother of the Lord, identical?” in the Princeton Review for J anuary, 1865,—M.] 


8 8. READERS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 


It is singular that the readers are referred to only in very general terms, as the called who are 
sanctified in God the Father and preserved for Jesus Christ. No residence, no country, no par- 
ticular account of the readers is given. Considering the dependence of this Epistle on the Sec: 
ond of Peter (see Introd. to 2d Ep. of Peter), it is probable that it was addressed to the same 
readers in Asia Minor, with a view to support and strengthen the exhortations and warnings of 
Peter. Others suppose that it was addressed to readers in Palestine, on account of the exam- 
ples, comparisons and allusions used by our author; so Credner, Augusti, Arnaud. The adver- 
saries whom Jude opposes are identical with those mentioned in 2 Peter; they are daring in- 
truders, who abused the liberty of the Gospel to a fearful extent, and indulged in enormous ex- 
cesses. De Wette supposes them to have been, not false teachers, but practical unbelievers, vy. 
4. 8, scoffers, threatening to destroy the Church, on the one:hand, by sensuality and dissolute- 
ness, vv. 8. 10. 12, and on the other, by discontent, opposition and separatism, vv. 11. 16. 19. 
But the Epistle contains certain intimations of false doctrines by which they sought to excuse 
their false, immoral principles (vv. 4. 12), which rendered them so much the more dangerous. 
Dorner rightly observes that “the adversaries of Jude are not only practical perverts, but also 


24. LITERATURE. ff 
beg ὺὃὄ 58 το τ στο - -- ----.------ς-ςςς--ςοες - 
false teachers.” This is also the view of Huther, who says that vv. 4. 8. 18. 19 intimate that 
they held Gnostico-antinomian views. Thiersch -—‘‘Peter warns his readers against deceivers 
that should come; Jude, writing not long after Peter, warns his readers against the same de- 
ceivers, after they had come, with a distinct reference to the warnings and predictions of the 
Apostles.” It must not be overlooked that Clement of Alexandria (Strom., 3, p. 431) supposes 
Jude in his Epistle to have prophetically referred to the Carpocratians and similar sects; see 
Guerike, p. 455.—The beginnings of such a demoniac Gnosis, which sanctioned pagan licentious- 
ness, stirred during the second half of the first century in the Churches of Ephesus, Pergamos 
and Thyatira. See Thiersch, p. 239. 

‘As to the date of this Epistle, it must have been written during the interval between the 
death of Peter, who wrote his second Epistle, which was used by Jude, shortly before his death, 
and the destruction of Jerusalem, because it contains no reference to that event (see above). 
Jude saw the impudent libertinism, the appearance of which had been foretold by Peter, in its 
full development. “It is not credible,” says Huther, “that Jude should have referred to the 
preaching of the Apostles, as past, if these were still in the prime of their Apostolical activity.” 
The place where the Epistle was written cannot be determined. 

The closer we draw to the last times of the Church, the more we ought to lay to heart this 
Epistle, which, as Meyer says, is a key-stone and an admonition of the most dangerous sins of 
the Church, and which, like the 2d Ep. of Peter, furnishes us with important disclosures relating 
to judgment and eternity. Capital applications of it to our own time are contained in Stier’s 
Exposition. 


24. LITERATURE. 


Srrer, the Epistle of Jude, Berlin, 1850. 
E. Arnavp, récherches crit. sur 0 Epitre de Jude, Strasb. and Paris, 1851. 
Huruer, Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and Jude. 
De Werte, Brief Exposition of the Epistles of Peter, Jude and James.—STARKE, RIEGER, 
RIcHTER. 
[ Also :— 
Laurmann, Wot. Crit. et Comment. in Ep. Jud., Groninge, 1818. 
ScHaruine, Jacob. et Jud. Ep. Cathol. Comment., Haynie, 1841. 
Herper, Briefe Zweener Briider Jesu, Lemgo, 1775. 
Aveustr, WELCKER, Benson, and Macxniaur, on the Catholic Epistles. 
Hanuutn, Ep. Jud. Grace, Comm. Oritico et Annot. perpet. illustr. Erlangen, 1804. 
Hasse, Brief Jude, etc., Jena, 1786. 
Scumrp, Observatt. Sup. Ep. Cath. 5. Jud. Hist. Orit. Theol., Lips., 1768. 
Wirsivus, Comment. in Metelemata Leidensia, Basil, 1739, p. 359, 299. 
Pricavus, Johannes Comment. in Jude Ep. in Comment. Crit. Sacr. 
For isagogical purposes consult, besides, E. Annaup (above), A. ΦΈΒΒΙΕΝ, de Authentia Ep. 
Jud., Lips., 1821. 
L.A. Arnaup, Essaz Orit. sur 1 Ant. cet., Strasb., 1835. 
F. Brun, Introd. crit. ἃ ? Ep. de Jude, Strasb., 1842, and al—M.] 


/ 


(2 5. SYNOPSIS OF PARALLEL PASSAGES IN THE SECOND EP. OF PETER AND 
THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


JUDE. 2 PETER. 
8. πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος. I. 5. πᾶσαν σπουδὴν παρεισενέγκαντες, ef. i. 15. 
4. παρεισέδυσαν yap τινες, oi πάλαι 11. 1. παρεισάξουσιν αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας, καὶ 
προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρῖμα, ἀσεβεῖς, τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην 
τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάρινμετατιθέντες εἰς ἀρνούμενοι .. .- καί πολλοὶ ἐξακολου- 
ἀσέλγειαν, καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην ϑήσουσιν αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀσελγείαις ... . 
καὶ Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν οἷς τὸ κρῖμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ. 


ἀρνούμενοι. 


8 THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


τι {τ-ῤῸ  ---.---ς--ς-ς-ς.---ς͵ς.Κς-ς------ τωυοποοσοι;'" Ὕὔσ...-- --ο-.ς-ςς.ςεο-ςε--ς-.-ς-ςς-ςς-ς--ς-ςς Ος-ςς.ς.ΟΘΟ»Β-. 


6. ἀγγέλους τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντες τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρ- II. 4. ὁ Θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὖκ ἐφείσατο, 


χὴν. . .. εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας ὃ εσ- ἀλλὰ σειραῖς ζ ὁ ὁ ου ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν 
μοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρη κεν. εἰςκρίσιν τηρουμένους. 

7. Σόδομα καὶ Τ' όμ οὐῤ ῥα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πό- 11.6-10. πόλεις Σο δόμων καὶ Τομόῤῥας καταστρο- 
λεις. ... ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρ- φῇ κατέκρινεν, ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων 
κὺς ἑτέρας πρόκεινται δεῖγμα. ἀσεβεῖν τεϑεικῶς. . . . τοὺς ὀπίσω 


ὃ σαρ κὸῦς ἐν ἐπιϑυμίᾳ πορευομένους. 
8. κυριότητα ἀθετοῦσι, δόξας δὲ BAaogy- 11.10. κυρεότητος καταφρονοῦντας. . -- δόξας 


μοῦσι. οὗ τρέμουσι βλασφημοῦντες. 

9. ὁ δὲ Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, ὅτε τῷ διαβόλῳ δια- 11. 11. ἅγγε Aor ἰσχύι καὶ δυνάμει μείζονες ὄντες ov 
κρινόμενος διελέγετο περὶ τοῦ Μωσέως σώμα- φέρουσι κατ’ αὐτῶν παρὰ Κυρίῳ βλάσ- 
τος οὐκ ἐτόλμησε κρίσιν ἐπενεγκεῖν φη μον κρίσιν. 
βλασφημίας, ἀλλ᾽ εἶπεν, ᾿Επιτιμῆσαι σοι 
Κύριος. 

10. ἄλογα ζῶα κ. τ. A. 11. 12, ἄλογα ζῶα. 


Compare also, Jude 11 with 2 Pet. 11.15. 
« 12. 13 with 2 Pet. ii. 13-17. 
er or μετα ate 18: 
PR UB OR ty 59:5: 1 


[2 6. THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 


As this book is generally supposed to be referred to in y. 14, a brief account of it, compiled 
from Westcott’s article in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, and notices of Volkmar’s article in the 
“ Zeitsschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft” for 1860, will be found useful to the 
readers of this Commentary. 

1. The history of the Book of Enoch—The Book was known to Justin Martyr, Irenzus, 
Anatolius, Clement of Alexandria and Origen; numerous references to it are found in the “Tes- 
taments of the XII. Patriarchs.’—Tertullian quotes it as “ποὺ received by some, nor admitted 
into the Jewish canon (“in armarium Judaicum”), but defends it on account of its reference to 
Christ (“Zegimus omnem scripturam edification habilem divinitus insprrart’). Augustine and ari 
anonymous writer, whose work is printed with Jerome’s, were acquainted with it; but from their 
time until the revival of letters, it was known in the Western Church only by the quotations in 
Jude, in the Eastern Church, some centuries later; considerable fragments of it are preserved in 
the Chronographia of Georgius Syncellus (circa, 792 A. D.); meanwhile, a report was current 
that the entire book was preserved in Abyssinia; in 1773, the traveller Bruce, on his return from 
Egypt, brought with him the complete Aithiopic translation of the entire book, the first detailed 
notice of which was not given until 1800, by Silvestre de Sacy, and the book itself was not pub- 
lished until 1821 in English, and in 1838 in Authiopic, by Archbishop Lawrence, whose transla- 
tion formed the basis of the German editions of Hoffmann (1833-38), and Gfroerer (1840) gave a 
Latin translation constructed from those of Lawrence and Hoffmann; but all these editions have 
been superseded by those of Dillmann, who edited the Aithiopic text from five MSS. (Liber 
Henoch, Athiopice, Lipsie, 1851), and afterwards gave a German translation of the book, with 
a good introduction and commentary (Das Buch Henoch .... von Dr. A. Dillmann, Leip- 
zig, 1853), which has called forth a number of Essays, the most important of which are those of 
Ewald and Hilgenfeld. 

νυ 2. The Aethiopic translation is supposed to have been made from the Greek, as, with the ex- 
ception of one passage quoted by Syncellus, it agrees in the main with the patristic quotations. 
But it is doubtful whether the Greek text was original, or itself a translation from the Hebrew. 
A Hebrew book of Enoch was known and used by Jewish writers till the thirteenth century, 
and the names of angels and winds are derived from Aramaic roots. 

3. The hook, in its present shape, consists of a series of revelations, supposed to have been 
given to Enoch and Noah, which extended to the most varied aspects of nature and life, and are 
designed to offer a comprehensive vindication of the action of Providence, 


3 6. THE BOOK OF ENOCH. 9 


4. “Tn doctrine the book of Enoch exhibits a great advance of thought within the limits of 
revelation in each of the great divisions of knowledge. The teaching on nature is a curious at- 
tempt to reduce the scattered images of the O. T. to a physical system. The view of society and 
man, of the temporary triumph and final discomfiture of the oppressors of God’s people, carries 
out into elaborate detail the pregnant images of Daniel. The figure of the Messiah is invested 
with the majestic dignity as “the Son of God,” “whose name was named before the sun was 
made,” and “who existed aforetime in the presence of God.’ And at the same time His human 
attributes as “the Son of man,” “the Son of woman,” “the Elect One,’ “the Righteous One,” 
“the Anointed,” are brought into conspicuous notice. The mysteries of the spiritual world, the 
connection of angels and men, the classes and the ministries of the hosts of heaven, the power 
of Satan and the legions of darkness, the doctrines of resurrection, retribution and eternal pun- 
ishment are dwelt upon with growing earnestness, as the horizon of speculation was extended 
by intercourse with Greece. But the message of the book is emphatically one of “faith and 
truth,” and while the writer combines and repeats the thoughts of Scripture, he adds no new 
element to the teaching of the prophets. His errors spring from an undisciplined attempt to ex- 
plain their words, and from a proud exultation in present success. For the great characteristic 
by which the book is distinguished from the later Apocalypse of Esdras (2d book), is the tone of 
triumphant expectation by which it is pervaded. It seems to repeat in every form, the great 
principle that the world, natural, moral and spiritual, is under the immediate government of 
God. Hence it follows that there is a terrible retribution reserved for sinners, and a glorious 
kingdom prepared for the righteous, and Messiah is regarded as the Divine Mediator of this 
double issue. Nor is it without a striking fitness that a patriarch, translated from earth, and 
admitted to look upon the Divine Majesty, is chosen as ‘‘the herald of wisdom, righteousness 
and judgment to a people who, even in suffering, saw in their tyrants only the victims of a com- 
ing vengeance.” (Westcott, 1. c.). 

5. On the date of the Book the most conflicting views prevail. Lawrence, Hoffmann, Gfroer- 
er, Wieseler and Gieseler suppose it to have been completed in the reign of Herod the Great; 
Liicke distinguishes two great parts, an older, written early in the time of the Maccabees, and a 
later, composed in the time of Herod the Great. Dillmann maintains the unity of the book, 
and assigns the chief part of it to an Aramzan, writer of the time of John Hyrcanus (circa, 110 
Β. 6). Hilgenfeld places the original book about the beginning of the first century before Christ, 
which he supposes to have passed through the hands of a Christian writer, who lived between 
the times “of Saturninus and Marcion,” who added the chief remaining portions, including the 
great Messianic section (cc. 37—71).— Volkmar (1. 6.) tries to prove that the book is a production 
of the time of the sedition of Barchochebas (A. 1). cirea 132), and to have been written by one 
of the followers of Rabbi Akiba, the great upholder of that impostor. In that case, the book of 
Enoch was not only of Jewish, but of distinctly antichristian origin; which point, however, is 
not yet fully established. (See Alford, Prolegg., p. 196). Westcott (1. 6.) reaches the conclusion 
that, as a whole, the book “may be regarded as describing an important phase of Jewish opinion 
shortly before the coming of Christ.” 

6. The apocryphal character of the Book has never been doubted in the Church; Tertul- 
lian alone maintains its authority; Origen (c. Ce/s., V. 54), Augustine (de Civitate Dei, XV., 28, 
4), and Jerome (Catalog. Script. Eccl., 4) describe it as apocryphal, and it is reckoned among 
the apocryphal books in the Apostolical Constitutions (VI., 16).—M.] 


- 


al ἐμάν " en cv, > at Υ Δ 
aon ΟΝ γαίας, Η i Te LA ce TAA, ou 
oa] yaa hy ‘ 4 * we ‘ 
: ae Wad fie ay Ἵ "ἢ a ΠῚ ῃ ΥΩ 
“ΔΉ μὸ ἣν ἘΠ mnie a ὦ 
᾿ per) | . ‘ 


| Ὧν"; 1 


ο' : elite ant Δεν τ ΤΠ ΑΕ oP 


ΕΟ ιν on f 


ἀὐψω δαὶ: en * ls 


RO θοῦ 14 ance Ἢ cram ἃ ries 


j τὰ ; 
᾿ ἀν τ ᾿ ; Ἵ , wt add Goce svat Aa ᾿ 
᾿ , Ἢ ω 4 fe . i | εὦ ᾽ } Ψ ἡ ͵ ‘ “ὃ ΡῚ ’ + δὴ i” ᾿ 
A rie. 4 . ‘ = Pe a ; cen pa bw ἣ ᾿ ᾿ fy ¢ ve Ϊ a hi T¢ cies fe 
ba iy ὮΝ Ay 5 Ι ; ᾿ ϊ ; a > baa IE ὶ ΤῊ i ae ug pe ᾿ 
ree ' ᾿ ray J ἮΝ gel a eae le ἥν eee are 
ἮΝ ,. As) : ‘ - a ? ee x | iM ᾿ by Lae yt a ii ΩΝ re ι 
ἀν δον afi it ay elt UP Wee ΝΟ ἋΣ 
seo boner τῶν. vitamnbibabe BL IR HP te μεν ἰὼ, τρλόνῃυ (a Sia snasipcawieidih ἣν ἡ ‘ 
: wou he tte Eel σα ἐτ δὼ nah ἡ ζω» TUNA yap wo Bere as ϑο. Ὑν en Ke oe ihe > 


eas δυῤνοιοοϊ ἑν ANAS yak, Ye “παν ὑπ ὅν δὴ ὡν of, τὰὦν αν ψύηι tga earl > 
ORS GA, Μηδ eo: & κα ame κων Har A pein? hee’ 893M cbt SAN: hia δ. : 
slttwrae atlgegit) > NS ret; ἢ italy 'Ββανηρ.- ἘΝ in "Ὁ φᾷ, ἰδῶ! οἶα δ pas [ 
GRR Sty wlan δ αι κα τ ifs Wier ai, a; ΤΕΣ Ὁ 
εν. ΜΡΎΝΝ ston se dik im πε τ waar): ἑν δον Arabpw us Und Signin My; ah 

Pn i igge " baa μάν, ee ἌΜΜΟΝ at ὧτ' eaters τὺ “«Ώ μὴ CRP 1p ie aa Rea aaieath 


Aas bois ARMA E Brean a BO Gig να ae ERO TUBE | ὙΜΒΣ at 


bah Re dee ἀρ Ἀπ ποΐ ἀμ He leh Hind lah πὸ FLAN es ve saute 
“ee ihe a ἊΝ ἈΠ EUS pint 4: iw γι ἔτος ΠΝ i Aes an path 

OR MED GBA Sy Ree AE on 
“ip aaibinh bat: Ἀμὴν ϑμῆνὸ liane yeast y's mt ee Lee TS on ge μηρὸν Aaa en , 
δ ΔῊΝ . ae ers aor) Sheet, ἴ es pabae Ie “se - ye ὑδς on; " gee. 


die ; 


A (164 μων“. νὸν γῇ + ταϑ a ig 39 κοὐ oF, 
saa i aA WLP par Aer) διό Yate ocets Me Ae ΤΡῪ at Mon os tee Sate latins 
ΡΥ ψ seni 2 N ahaa εἰ" 5.» ἐὺ ΠΟΥ ee ἐν " ΝΣ: mcd ns ΔΝ ΔΝ ΓΝ t ΕΣ awe: 


A 


Av PR + nh al ur ai 47 τ τέῳ (ὦ, ἮΙ ἡγε καὶ ; 
Bete ἐν “ἣν Gay ‘a’ Tab Hee wpeitls 4'r ἐν seated it ie ry ες eee | ie ges i ae 
dane Bete eta νὸν ἡ ἡ ἢ" ον aqual! , dhena αυεν μι bnetey ) eee Aes vy Abdur 
am © ἐγ ἊΨ ΜΝ ἢ I ἘΔ 4 ed ahh γί ἀν hy “(ὦ ts α i 


ah ale i a a aay o yer F A 
veo ibn Ho ach aA ae 
AAP ad gta ς ΓΤ re ab vy! rabid hd 2. it a hs aol Sonne nd eal 


Pye et sen Male ee Ν ἼΩΝ bs A 


ae. υ φλεἰ)ε abe ind se ὅλων a ew Ea eae wk wea 
‘ si pall sj nid’ ν Ἢ why « U Wie δεν τῶ ὅδε bathe γν ners 
F ~ =f of Vouk γὺν τ mi ἃς “pae) δ ad Dk hed 

' v Mgt "ἢ, My) ayy 

eee ~~ ὃν i" WR σεν. © ani bea a μι, τὰν wht 
*) ol. 4. in bt a ty a sieved ἀν ‘ 
iL τ AA, ay’ - “Qs tr io del, sia eee ᾿ vas 
‘ Ger he 
HLM rier i” aft 


GH ey "ἦν. > 
ΔῚ Vata 4 pene ὩΥΑΥ͂ εἰ' Bison is 
niet i Wee p ἜΗΝ ἣν 


Ns rik ra is aL ἀῤεὴν ἥδ᾽ χε 


πω» 
ΡΛ ΚΝ 


COMMENTARY. 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


VERSES 1-4. 


ContTEeNTS :—Address, salutation (vv. 1. 2), occasion and scope of the Epistle, warning against bold false teachers, and press- 


ing exhortation to the champions of the faith to contend with them. 


JUDE, the! servant of Jesus Christ,? and brother of James, to them* that are sanc- 

2 tified* by® God the Father, and preserved® in’ Jesus Christ, and called: Mercy unto 

3 you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write 

unto you of® the common? salvation, it was needful” for me to write unto you, and ex- 

hort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once™ delivered unto 

4 the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before! of old or- 

dained to this condemnation,!* ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into las- 
civiousness, and denying the only Lord® God, and our Lord* Jesus Christ. 


[Tuz:—lovda tov αποστολοὺ επιστολὴ χαθολιχὴ; Re: ex. Tovaytou 


Verse 1. 


Verse 3. 


azoot. lovéa. L—M. 

[German :—Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, brother of James, to the called ‘that are sanctified in God the 
Father, and preserved for Jesus Christ.—M. ] 

[i The only instance (except Phil. i. 1, where the word is in the Plural), in which E. V. prefixes the definite 
Article to the descriptive title of the writer. Lillie—M.] 

[2 δὲ, rendered and in Εἰ. V., and not translated at all in German, may have antithetical force. De Wette 
says that it “appends another title, different from the one preceding.” It might be rendered, “ James, 
a servant of Jesus Christ, but brother of James.” If this Jude is one of the brothers of the Lord (Mtt. 
xiii. 55; Mk. vi. 3), as we believe he is, this ὃ ἐ would give us a beautiful insight into the spirituality of 
his mind, for it might be regarded as an intimation on his part that “no longer knowing Christ after 
the flesh, he now gloried in the far higher relationships (Matt. xi. 11; xii. 48-50; Lke. xi. 28) of the 
kingdom of heaven, gladly merging the distinction of nature in the spiritual fellowship of the breth- 
ren, whose one Master is Christ (Matt. xxiii. 8).” Lillie —M.] 

[3 The construction of E. V. is not countenanced by the Greek. tots κλητοῖς isa Noun, qualified by the 
intermediate Participles ἡγιασμένοις andteTnpynmMevots.—M.] 

4 Lachmann and Tisch. [following A. B., Sin., Vulg., Syr.} read ἡγαπημένοις ἐν. This reading would 
require Tots ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ to be taken by itself, viz.: “to those belonging to God the Father; ” for 
to render ἐ v—=by or on account of would be inadmissible. De Wette considers this reading incorrect. 
[But A. B., Sin. recommend it as the true reading. The sense is plain, viz.: “that are beloved (that 
have been and are, Perf.) in God the Father.”—M.] 

[5 €v—in, not by. “ Non solum A, sed et 1n Deo Patre, ut unum cum ipso sint, Jno. xvii. 21.” Witsius.—M.] 

[ὁτετηρημένοις. “The Verb τὴ ρ ἕω occurs 75 times in the N. T. (five times in this Epistle), and in E. 
V. is 58 times rendered to keep ; only hereand 1 Thess. v. 23, to preserve. Wherever, as in this verse, it 
is used of believers, I prefer to translate it by keep, not so much on the general ground of uniformity, 
as on account of the large use of that term in the same connection in our Lord’s high-priestly prayer 
(Jno. xvii).” Lillie —M. } 

Π Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. Translate, not “in Jesus Christ,” as E. V., but “for Jesus Christ.” Heenlein: “ Da- 
tivus subjectt, cut fideles Det provida cura servati sunt.” Vorstius: “in eum finem, ut aliquando 
Christo adducantur tanquam sponsa sponso.”’ | 

[German :—Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you (more fully) concerning our common sal- 
vation, I felt the necessity to write to you in a hortatory form to contend for the faith once delivered 
unto the saints—M.]_ . 

[8 we pc=concerning, touching better than of in Εἰ. V.—M.] 

[Cod. Sin. reads τοῦ γράφει ν.--Μ.} 


12 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


ἡμῶν σωτηρίας καὶ ζωῆς.--Μ|} 


9 ἀναγκήν ἔσχον-ε 1 had need,” or “1 felt constrained.”—M. ] 


bs Lachm. has ἡ μῶν after κοινῆς; Syr. Vulg.duav; Sin. κοιν. 
1 


1 ἅπα ξ, stronger than once,—semel et simul, semel pro semper, i. e., once for all. 
[Translate :—Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you concerning 


See Lexica.—M.] 
our common salvation, I 


felt constrained to write unto you, exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for 


all delivered unto the saints.—M.] 


Verse 4. [12 Sin. inserts καὶ beforemaAat. mpoypadw—to write before, to declare, describe beforehand ; ordained 
adopted by E. V. from Geneva V., is a very dubious rendering, and should be replaced by a less objec- 
tionable word; either of the above have the merit of literal translations of the Greek.—M.] 

[8 «pt a, condemnation, in the sense of punishment,—M. ] 
14 Lach., Tisch. read χάριτα. which is the poetic Accusative. 
Griesb. and al., following the best authorities, omit Θ ed», which is doubtless a gloss, and found its way 
into the text because δεσπότης is used of the Father in all passages except 2 Pet. ii. 1; cf. Lke. ii. 
29; Acts iv. 24; Rey. vi.10. μόνος, moreover, did not seem to suit Christ. 
[516 A. B. C., Sin. omit Θεὸν. Agreeing with this omission, translate: “For certain men have crept in 
privily, who have been long ago described beforehand (in the Holy Scriptures) for this condemnation, 
ungodly, perverting the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master, and Lord 


Jesus Christ.”—M. | 


[German :—“ For some have crept in stealthily, who long since have been designated beforehand for this 
judgment, ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and deny the only Master, 


God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”—M.] 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 1. Jude (from (T3371? iy. the 


praised, the confessor), different from Judas Is- 
cariot and Judas Lebbeeus, or Thaddeus. See 
Introduction. 

A servant of Jesus Christ.—dovdoc; used 
in a restricted sense of persons intrusted with 
an office in the Church, cf. 2 Pet. i. 1. Paul 
calls himself so, Rom. i. 1; Tit. i. 1; Phil. i. 1; 
and James i. 1. Paul and Peter superadd their 
call to the Apostolate; Jude and James omit 
ἀπόστολος. The simple reason of this omission 
is that they were no Apostles. This omission is 
the more remarkable in the case of Jude, be- 
cause, as has been shown in the Introduction to 
2 Peter, during the composition of this Epistle, 
he had before him the 2d Ep. of Peter, and es- 
pecially also its introductory sentences. If the 
author of this Epistle and Judas Thaddeus, the 
Apostle, were identical, the silence he observes 
ceneeening his Apostleship would be unaccount- 
able. 

Brother of James.—Of that James, who 
was a brother of the Lord according to the flesh, 
and author of the Epistle that bears his name. 
See Introduction. Both are silent concerning 
their fraternal relation to the Lord. Why? 
Both may have remembered His words: ‘Who 
is my mother and who are my brethren?” Matt. 
xii. 49. A servant of Christ is really a nearer 
relation than a mere brother after the flesh, ef. 2 
Cor. y. 16. It is commonly said that modesty 
prompted Jude to call himself a brother of James 
and not a brother of the Lord (Bengel, Stier) ; 
but we ought not to forget that the recollection 
of that fraternal relation must have been very 
humiliating to him, for, although so nearly re- 
lated to the Lord, he did not believe in Him for 
a long time, Jno. vii. 8-5. According to Huther, 
the words ‘brother of James” are not only in- 
tended to designate the individuality of the au- 
thor (cf. Jno. xiv. 22), but also to justify his 
writing; they possibly intimate that this Epistle 
was destined for the readers of that of James, 
seeing they are not described in more particular 
terms. See Introduction. 

To the called—Jesus Christ.— ΤῸ the 
called, sc., greeting; κλητοί which is the principal 
word of the whole clause, signifies not only per: 
sons invited or bidden, but those in whom the 


Divine calling out of the world has already be- 
come efficient, 1 Pet. i. 15; ii. 9. 21; iii. 9; y. 
10; 2 Pet. i. 3-10; called saints, 1 Cor. i. 2. 24; 
Rom. i. 6. 7; Gal. i. 6. . 

᾿ἩἩγιασμένοις ἐν. To those who, in communion 
with God the Father, have been acquitted from 
the guilt and punishment of sins, and made a 
beginning in the sanctification of the Spirit, cf. 1 
Pet. i. 2. 

Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τετηρημένοις. Huther:—‘*The 
Part. Perf. simply denotes that which had taken 
place up to the time when the Epistle was writ- 
ten, but this condition must be conceived contin- 
uing according to the force of the Perfect tense.” 
Cf. Winer, p. 286, sq.—So Stier:—** Jude con- 
ceives his readers as having been preserved until 
then.” They are preserved from seduction and 
apostasy for Jesus Christ so that they are His 
possession, the reward of His sufferings, His 
glory and crown, enabling Him to say of them, 
‘Thine they were and thou gavest them me; and 
they have kept thy word,” Jno. xvii. 6.12; 1 
Pet. 1. 5. 

[ Wordsworth ;—*“ The evilangels are preserved 
or kept for. judgment (2 Pet. ii. 4); the heavens 
are preserved or kept for fire; but ye are pre- 
served or kept for Jesus Christ, as a peculiar 
people (1 Pet. ii. 9), and there is an everlasting 
inheritance preserved or kept in heaven for you.” 
—M. 

το 2. Mercy unto you—multiplied.— 
ἔλεος. Instead of it, 1 Pet. i. 2; 2 Pet. i. 2 have 
χάρις, while ἔλεος occurs in Gal. vi. 16; 2 Tim. i. 
16, and in connection with γάρις 1 Tim. i. 2; 2 
Tim. 1. 2; 2 Jno. 8; cf. 1 Pet. 1. 8. Τὸ 15. the 
grace of God and Christ condescending to the 
helpless and miserable. Stier:—‘‘ We learn from 
the conclusion, y. 21, that Jude refers here par- 
ticularly to the mercy or grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, for he connects therewith the love of God, 
and appropriately assigns to the peace of the 
Holy Ghost the place of a living centre.” De 
Wette also explains ἀγάπη as the love of God to 
Christians, deeming the verb πληϑυνϑείη to be 
better suited to such an interpretation. On 
πληϑυγϑείη, cf. 1 Pet. i. 2. Bengel’s note is: ‘‘a 
testimony of the Holy Trinity.” 


Ver. 8. When I gave all diligence, ete.— 
πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι. To use all diligence, to 
be earnest in something either inwardly in mind 
and purpose, or outwardly in the execution of an 
action. Peter has σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισφέρειν, 2 
Peter i. 5, and σπουδάζειν, ch. i. 15. Here it de- 


VER. 1-4. 


notes inward purpose. The Part. Pres., as de 
Wette observes, expresses the author’s action at 
the time he had occasion to write (cf. Winer, p. 
406), but he seems to be wrong in supposing his 
writing to be already an action on the point of 
being executed. His opinion is, that Jude had 
been engaged on the composition of a longer and 
more comprehensive Epistle, (the loss of which 
we have to lament), when he was for the time 
called away from that work in order to write 
this present Epistle. His reference to Sherlock 
is inaccurate, for he only adverts to Jude’s in- 
tention of writing more fully. 


Concerning our common salvation.— 
He had desired to write concerning its acquisi- 
tion, enjoyment and preservation. This exhibits 
a contrast to the hortatory Epistle which circum- 
stances (the appearance of antinomians or some 
other cause unknown to us) constrained him to 
indite. 

I felt the necessity, etc.—Eoyov ἀνάγκην, I 
had with me, I felt within me the necessity, I 
saw myself inwardly constrained, cf. Luke xiv. 
18; xxiii. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 37; Heb. vii. 27; παρα- 
καλῶν denotes the character and tone, as well as 
the scope and matter of the Epistle. 

᾿Επαγωνίζεσθαι, to fight concerning and for a 
thing [metaphorically in the sense of earnestly 
contending for a thing.—M.]. Bengel: ‘‘There 
is a twofold duty, strenuously to fight for the 
faith against enemies, and to edify oneself in 
faith, v. 20; cf. Neh. iv. 16, ete.” [᾿επαγωνίζεσθαι, 
supercertare, is to fight, standing upon a thing 
which is assaulted and which the adversary de- 
sires to take away, and it is to fight so as to de- 
fend it, and to retain it.—M. ] 


For the faith, πίστει, here the faith that is 
believed, objectively, the Gospel as v. 20; Gal. 
ili. 25; Rom. i. 5. We have here a reference to 
2 Peter i. 1, whence it follows that πίστις there 
also must be taken objectively. 

Once, not—at one time, formerly, but once for 
all, so that it continues thus forever, that it is 
liable to no changes, and that no new revelation 
is to be looked for. [Casaubon: ‘Zo contend 
earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the 
saints. Divine words, few in number, but rich 
in meaning. If rightly understood and duly 
obeyed, these words would put an end to all 
modern controversies, and restore peace to the 
Church. Do we desire to know what the true 
faith is? St. Jude here tells us—that which was 
once, and once for all delivered to the saints. Hvery 
doctrine which can be shown to be posterior to 
that faith, is new; and every doctrine that is new 
is false.’—M.]. ‘*No other faith will be given.” 
Bengel. 

Delivered (communicated) not immediately 
by God, as Bengel interprets, but by the Apostles, 
ef. 2 Pet. 11. 213 1 Coroxi, 2. 23): xv. 38> Tuke i: 2. 

To the saints.—Cf. 1 Peter ii. 9; iii. 5; 2 
Peter i. 21; iii, 2; Col. i. 2. 12; iii. 12; Philem. 
5. 7; Heb. iii. 1; vi. 10; Eph. i. 1. 15. 18; 11.19; 
ii. 8.18. [Bengel: Sanctis omnibus ex fide sanc- 
tissima, Vv. 20.—M. ] 

Ver. 4. For certain men—condemnation. 
—This verse supplies the reason of that necessity 


and of the contest which the readers are bound 
to maintain. 


13 


παρεισδύνειν, to enter by the side of, to creep 
in stealthily by a side-door. Those deceivers 
passed the right door, John x. 7, and like thieves 
and robbers entered by some other way into 
the fold of the Church, John x. 1. De Wette 
says rightly, that ‘it is not said that these men 
did creep in from without, but only, that their 
sentiments and habits were foreign to those of 
the Christian community, and that they ought 
not to belong to it.” Similar are the expressions 
παρεισφέρειν αἱρέσεις, 2 Peter ii. 1, παρεισέρχεσθαι 
and παρεΐσακτος, Gal. ii. 4. Cf. 1 John 11. 19; 2 
Tim. iii. 6. 

[‘‘Le mot τίνες a quelque chose de méprisant, com- 
me dans Gal. ii. 12.” Arnaud.—M. | 

‘Ou προεγραμμέυοι. The Article is used empha- 
tically with the Participle, if the participial cha- 
racter is to be made especially prominent, ef. 
Winer, p. 120. They are unknown, insignificant 
men, but they have long since been described in 
the word of God. προγράφειν, to write before- 
hand of one, to predict by the word and by types. 
Cf. Rom. xv. 4. The pregnant term denotes, 

1. That they were described beforehand, e. g., 
Psixxxy. 16s. 4 xxxvi. 2; lyin: 4: ΡΟ: ΚΠ. 
25, and typified in the people who lived at the 
time of the flood, in the people of Sodom, in the 
wicked persecutors of David. 

2. They were beforehand appointed for judg- 
ment, not by an absolute predestination, but be- 
cause of their wickedness, which God foresaw in 
the light of His omniscience. Isa. iv. 3; ren- 
dered by the LXX. οἱ γραφέντες εἰς ζωήν, might be 
compared with this passage and applied to the 
eternal purpose of God, compared with a book, 
as Calvin does, but Huther rightly observes that 
πάλαι, long since, from of old, forbids such an 
interpretation. It is this very word which ren- 
ders all reference to the Epistles of Paul and Peter 
inadmissible, as Grotius sees here a particular 
allusion to 2 Peter ii.; it is doubtful whether, as 
Bengel maintains, there is here a reference to the 
Book of Enoch in the sense that Enoch predicted 
long before what afterwards became fixed in 
writing. [Alford thinks that the reference is to 
the Book of Enoch, cf. v. 17, but deems it pro- 
bable that the warnings contained in the histori- 
cal facts mentioned below, may also be meant.— 
M. 

dor this condemnation, of which the Apos- 
tle [?] treats in the sequel, seeing it, as it were, 
already present. Κρῖμα, here a judgment of con- 
demnation.—The corresponding passage in Peter 
is, ‘“whose judgment now of a long time lingereth 
not, and their damnation slumbereth not,” 2 
Peter ii. 8. [Wordsworth: -‘*The doom which 
they would incur, had been προεγραμμένον, writ- 
ten public beforehand in the prophecy of Enoch 
(v. 14), and visibly displayed in the punishment 
of the Israelites (vy. 5), and in that of the rebel 
angels (v. 6), and had been graven indelibly in 
letters of fire on the soil of Sodom and Gomorrah 

Vani) = 

tine God is unchangeably just and holy, all 
who sin after the manner of those thus punished, 
must look for like punishment to theirs. They 
have been publicly designated beforehand for it, 
by the punishment of those whom they imitate 
in sin. Therefore, these false teachers cannot 
plead ignorance of the consequences of their sin; 


14 


THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


and you will be without excuse, if you are de- 
ceived by them. 


The false teachers here specially noted, were 
the Simonians, Nicolaitans and Ebionites.”—M. ] 


Ungodly—lasciviousness, 7. ¢., according 
to Stier’s explanation, those who refuse to know 
any thing of fear, submission and adoration. 
Men who, having torn themselves loose from 
God, the root of our life, show this in their life, 
cf. 1 Peter iv. 18; 2 Peter ii. 5; iii. 7; Jude 15; 
Rom. iy. 5; v.6; 1 Tim.i.9. Their ungodliness 
is described by two exhibitions: a. They turn the 
grace of God into lasciviousness ; χάριν, not—evan- 
gelical doctrine, Christian religion (Caloy, al.), 
nor—acquired life of grace (de Wette, who com- 
pares Gal. v. 4; 1 Peter νυ. 12), for the descrip- 
tion which follows renders it highly improbable, 
that these men had received (although only in 
part, as Stier thinks) the first-fruits of the Spirit 
in conscious regeneration. But it is the grace 
offered to them in baptism, in calling, in the 
preaching of the word, in Holy Scripture, ac- 
quired for them by Christ and now ready for 
their acceptance. They take hold of it, but put 
it in the wrong place, viz., there where the law 
ought to be, this is the force of μετατιθέναι; in- 
stead of using it as an incentive to holiness, they 
employ it as a cloak of maliciousness, 1 Peter ii. 
16, as a passport of unrighteousness, Rom. vi. 1. 
2; 2 Peter ii. 19; Gal. v. 18. They draw the 
daring conclusion: Because God is so merciful, 
bécause Christ has redeemed us from sin, because 
this and that sin have been passed unpunished, 
therefore we need not be so particular concern- 
ing sin, ef. Sir. v. 8, sq.; Heb. vii. 12. Of course 
they thereby do not change the nature of grace, 
but only deprive themselves of its salutary ef- 
fects. [They change the state of grace and 
Christian liberty into a state of moral licence 
and wantonness; so Alford. Bede: ‘‘Hanc ejus 
gratiam transferunt in luxuriam, qui nunc tanto li- 
centius et liberius peccant, quanto minus se vident as- 
peritate legis de admissis fascinoribus examinari.”’— 
M. 

+e θεοῦ ἡμῶν. Wuther: ‘An expression of the 
sense of adoption,” not exactly, as Bengel main- 
tains, in opposition to the ungodly. 

Εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, cf. 1 Pet. iv. 8: 2 Pet. ii. 7. 18. 


And deny the only Master, God and 
the Lord Jesus Christ.—wdvov δεσπότην Θεόν. 
[See note 14 in App. Crit.—M.]. If Θεόν were 
a genuine reading, the most natural construction 
would be this: They deny the Father and the 
Son (although even in this case the sole reference 
to Christ would be possible), for the want of the 
Article would be no objection to it, because it 
might be omitted on account of ἡμῶν, cf. Winer, 
pp. 141. 142. Even without the probably false 
reading Θεόν, δεσπότης may be applied to the Fa- 
ther, κύριος to the Son, like in Titus ii. 18, ac- 
cording to the doctrine of Paul, μέγας Θεός relates 
tothe Father, σωτήρ to the Son; but the compari- 
son of 2 Peter ii. 1, which Jude had before him, 
shows that the two predicates are to be under- 
stood of Christ. While Peter declares Christ to 
be the Lord that bought even those deceivers 
with His own blood, Jude infers therefrom that 
He is their only legitimate Lord, not as con- 
trasted with the other persons of the Godhead, 


but with foreign lords, who rule over and in them. 
Isa. xxvi. 13. This view of the passage is not 
affected by μόνος, which is generally attributed 
to the Father, and κύριος retains its ordinary and 
usual meaning. Huther, on the other hand, un- 
derstands δεσπότην of the Father, and cites Enoch 
xlviii. 11: ‘They denied the Lord of the spirits 
and His Messiah,” ef. 1 John ii. 22; but this quo- 
tation is fully counterbalanced by that of 2 Peter 
11}. 

[Alford applies δεσπότην to the Father, and ar- 

es: 

1. That in every other place δεσπότης is used 
of God, cf. Luke ii. 29; Acts iv. 24; Rev. vi. 10; 
Jer. iv. 10. 

2. That the addition μόνος seems to bind this 
meaning to it here. 

3. That the denial of God by disobeying His 
law is the epexegetic resumption of the last 
clause. 

4. δεσπότην καὶ κύριον are hardly distinguish- 
able if both applied to Christ. On these grounds 
he agrees with Huther in regarding the rejected 
Θεόν as having been, although a gloss, yet a true 
one; and would remind the reader, once for all, 
that the reference of any term in the parallel 
place of 2 Peter, is no guide for us here, seeing 
that it belongs to the extremely curious relation 
of the two passages to each other, that many com- 
mon terms are used in different senses.—M. } 

Deny, see 2 Pet. ii. 1. The reference here is 
according to the description of those deceivers, 
more especially to their practical denying (so de 
Wette and Huther). Even the book of Enoch 
(Ixvii. 8. 10; xci. 7) connects in the case of the 
ungodly the denial of the Lord of the spirits with 
voluptuousness. 


[DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 7 


[Ver. 3. ‘The faith is that system of truths re- 
vealed in the Holy Scriptures concerning the 
dispensations of the God, whom we adore, and 
into whose name we were baptized, the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three Persons, one 
God. These truths are proposed to us as the 
ground of our hope, our comfort, and our joy; 
as the principles on which the conduct of life is 
to be framed, accepted and rewarded. We re- 
ceive the revelation, which contains the truths, 
upon that plenary and satisfactory evidence 
vouchsafed us of its authenticity, and we receive 
the truths, which it contains, on the authority of 
the Revealer. The different articles of our 
belief, dispersed in the Scriptures, were very 
early collected into summaries styled creeds, re- 
cited at baptism, and constituting thenceforward 
the badge and test of a man’s profession. By «# 
formulary of this kind the catechumen himself 
was instructed; ‘‘the faith once delivered” was 
transmitted down to posterity; the members of 
the spiritual society were kept together; the 
doctrines, by them believed and taught, were 
made known to the world, and distinguished from 
a multitude of heterogeneous and erroneous 
opinions, by them disclaimed; a connection with 
the maintainers of which would justly have 
brought discredit on themselves and their cause. 
For these’ reasons the use of creeds appears to 


VER. 


have at first been introduced and since con- 
tinued.” Horne.—M. ] 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The calling of God the beginning of all His 
exhibitions of grace.—General and particular 
calling. Man’s relation thereto.—Believers the 
possession, the spoil, the crown and reward of 
the Lord Jesus.—The Christian life a state of 
constant warfare.—The great danger of abusing 
grace.—The manifold denial of the Lord that 
bought us. 

Starke :—Every Christian should be an hon- 
est Judas; ὁ 6., a confessor, confessing Christ 
before the world according to the belief of his 
heart in word and life, that Christ may confess 
him before His Father. Mtt. x. 832.—Would that 
all Jews were such, or would soon become such. 
Rom. x.1.—It is not enough for a man’s salva- 
tion that he receive the call of grace, he must 
accept it, become holy aud persevere in grace, 
Is. lv. 8: Rey. ii. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 1. 2.—Chris- 
tianity is never at a stand-still, but ever 
growing and progressing, 1 Thess. iii. 12; iv. 1. 
—We must fight for our faith against our lusts, 
the world and Satan; otherwise we shall not 
receive the end of faith, the salvation of our 
souls, 1 Pet. i. 9.—God has prepared His grace 
for the penitent that are of a broken heart, 
Is, lxi. 1, and namely for their consolation and 
amendment. This truth ungodly men reverse in 
that they accord grace to the impenitent, not for 
their amendment, but for their security.—The 
more secret an enemy, the more dangerous, Ps. 
lxiv. 6. 7.—Sinning in reliance upon grace is the 
poison which corrupts and kills the greatest 
number of souls. The Gospel is to them a savour 
of death unto death.—Those who deny Christ 
that bought them with His blood, are the servants 
of the devil, 1 Jno. iii. 8. 

K. H. Rrecer:—Even evil times should neither 
make us evil and harsh, nor cause us to fall from 
our first love. Whatever remains to be done, 
must be done by love, 1 Thess. ii. 7.—Contend- 
ing without one’s own edification would amount 
to quarrelling. Edification without contending 
is indifference which does not sufficiently con- 
sider what edifying is. Cf. v. 20.—The devil in- 
troduces his children of malice among the chil- 
dren of the kingdom, even as tares creep in 
among good wheat and at first cannot be dis- 


5-15. 15 


tinguished from it. His lies always spring up 
under some borrowed rag of truth. 

Stier :—In the accredited, sealed word of the 
Scriptures we have the authentic deposit of the 
precious jewel of the first testimony of faith, 
which deposit is to be preserved and necessarily 
becomes the permanent rule of faith.—The faith 
delivered to Christendom is the treasure for the 
unimpaired possession and enjoyment of which 
we must fight against hostile powers.—God has 
a holy purpose of justice in that He gives up to 
the deception of powerful error all those who 
would not believe in the truth with all their heart, 
as they ought, 2 Thess. ii. 8-12.—Those who will 
not obey Christ, to the Christ whom they ought 
and must know as the Lord, have also no God in 
heaven, no gods (Ps. Ixxxii.; Exod. xxii. 28) on 
earth, and become through and through rebels 
and insurrectionists. 

[Barrow:—Some vehemency (some smartness 
and sharpness) of speech may sometimes be used 
in defence of truth, and impugning errors of bad 
consequence; especially when it concerneth the 
interests of truth that the reputation and author- 
ity of its adversaries should somewhat be abased 
or abated. If by a partial opinion or reverence 
toward them, however begotten in the minds of 
men, they strive to overbear or discountenance 
a good cause, their cause, so far as truth permit- 
teth, and need requireth, may be detected and dis- 
played. For this cause particularly may we 
presume our Lord (otherwise so meek in His 
temper, and mild in his carriage toward all men) 
did characterize the Jewish scribes in such terms, 
that their authority (being then so prevalent 
with the people) might not prejudice the truth, 
and hinder the efficacy of His doctrine. This is 
part of that ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ πίστει, the duty of 
contending earnestly for the faith, which is incum- 
bent upon us.—M. | . 


Sermon-Themes: 

Ver. 1. Spiritual fellowship with Christ. 

Ver. 8. The rule of faith. Zeal for the cause 
of Christianity. The firith once delivered to the 
saints, a depositum or trust, committed to the 
care of the Church. Civil government and re- 
ligion. 

Cf. on v. 4. Cuacet, NicHortas: The abuse 
of God’s grace, discovered in the kinds, causes, 
punishments, symptoms, cures, differences, cau- 
tions, and other practical improvements thereof. 
4ϊο., Oxford, 1659.—M. ] 


VERSES 5-15. 


ConTENTS :—Three examples of the punitive justice of God, typical of the judgment awaiting those deceivers, introduced 


as a warning, vy. 5-8; more particular description of their sins. 


An exclamation of woe, y. 11, followed by additional 


details of their character, and an application to them of a prophecy of Enoch. 


5 I will? therefore? put you in remembrance, though ye* once knew this,* how that 
the Lord,’ having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed δ them 


6 that believed not. 


And the angels’ which kept not their first estate, but left their 


own habitation, he hath reserved? in everlasting chains* under darkness unto the 


16 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


7 judgment ofthe great day. Even as" Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them 


8 
9 


10 
11 


12 


13 


14 
15 


in like manner," giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange” flesh, 
are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise ™ also 
these filthy dreamers defile “ the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.% 
%Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the 
body of Moses, durst ” not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord 
rebuke thee. But these speak evil of those things * which they know not: but what they 
know” naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto 
them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Ba- 
laam for reward,” and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your 
feasts of charity,” when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds 
they are without water, carried about’ of winds; trees whose fruit withereth,” with- 
out fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out 
their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for 
ever. And Enoch, also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied™ of these, saying, Behold 
the Lord® cometh with ten thousand of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, 
and to convince” all that are* ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which 
they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners 
have spoken against him. 


Verse 5. [ δὲ, not—therefore, but—but. 

Kiihner: “6 é most generally has an adversative force, and hence can express every kind of contrast. 
In respect to its signification, it ranks like the Latin autem, between the copulative connectives (τέ, 
kat) and the adversative (ἀλλά, etc.), Since it contains both a copulative and adversative force, and 
hence either opposes one thought to another, (adversative), or merely contrasts it (copulative). Hence 
it is very frequently used in Greek, where the English uses and. The new thought being different 
from the preceding is placed in contrast with it.” 

Winer (pp. 472. 473): “δέ Never means therefore, then; nor for, nor does it ever serve as a mere copula or 
particle of transition.””—M.] 

[Ξ3βούλομαι, to wish, to desire. Its force ought to be brought out in a stronger form than the ambiguous 
“T will.’”—M. 

(ὑμᾶς. The ὙΠ of thesecond ὑμᾶς is Ἰοδ ἴῃ E. V.; itis emphatic, and the emphasis ought to be 
brought out. “ But I wish to remind you, you who.. .”—M. 

[εἰδότας hasa Present sense. They know it once for all, certainly, fully. This thorough knowledge of 
theirs is the motive of Jude’s reminding them. They know it now ; not that they knew it once and have 
now forgotten it.—M.] 

5 Lachm., Tisch. read εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα, ὅτι ὃ Ἰησοῦς. So Vulgate. Stier says, that this would 
be unexampled, unintelligible, remarkable; that the dark Epistle had been much corrected and glossed. 
De Wette agrees with Lachmann, following A. B. C. and other authorities, but not in respect of 
Ἰησοῦς. [The reading πάντα is also sustained by Cod. Sin., several Cursives, Copt. Syriac. It is on 
many accounts preferable to τοῦ το. 
᾿ Ἰησοῦς instead of K ύριος is the reading of A. B., several Cursives, Vulg., Copt., Sahidic, Hthiopic and 
Armenian verss.; also of Didymus, Cyril, Jerome, Cassian, and received by Griesb. and Lachmann. In 
point of doctrine, it agrees with that of Paul. Cf. 1 Cor. x. 1-11; Heb. iii. 7-19; iv. 1. 2—M.] 

[SSevrepor, the second time, again not afterwards, asin E. V. The first thing was deliverance, the sec- 

ond destruction. So Engl. Annot., Stier, Peile, Huther, Wordsw., Lillie —M.] 
(German: “ But I will remind you, you that have known this once, that the Lord, having saved the people 
out of the land of Egypt, for the second time destroyed those who believed not.” 
Translate: ‘* But I wish to remind you, you who know all things once for all, that the Lord, having saved 
the people out of the land of Egypt, the next time destroyed those who believed not.”—M. } 
Verse 6. [(TayyéAovs. The omission of the Article here contrasts angels with men, of whom Jude has spoken in 
the previous verse. τοὺς μὴ x. τ΄ A. specifies the particular class of angels in question.—M. } 
[SSequots ἀϊδίοις, Abl.instr. “With everlasting bonds.” “E. V.,18 times out of 20 (the other ex- 
ception being Mk. vii. 35, string) has bands or bonds.” Lillie. Calvin: “ Quocunque pergant, secum 
trahunt sua vincula et suis tenebris obvoluti manent. Interea in magnum diem extremum eorum sup- 
plicium differtur.’ Milton, Par. Lost. [V., 75: ‘ Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell.”—M.] 
[9“τετήρηκεν, says Huther, stands in sharp opposition to μὴ τηρήσαντας." Hence the same word 
ought to be used in order to bring out the opposition. 
(German :—* And the angels that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath kept for 
the judgment of the great day with everlasting bonds under darkness.” 
(Translate :—“ And angels that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath kept with 
everlasting bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day.”—M.} : 
Verse 7. [1° ὦ eee with ὑπομνῆσαι, viz.: “I wish toremind you... . how Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.”— 


Ἱ τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις Tpém70v=in like manner as these men.—M.] 
2érépas. “Nowhere else does E. V. translate €t € pos, which occurs 98 times, by strange.” Lillie —M.] 
[German :—* How Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, having whored themselves out in like 
manner as these, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of 
eternal fire.” 
[Translate :— .... having given themselves over to fornication in like manner as these men, and gone 
after other flesh, are set forth, etc.—M.] 
Verse 8. [18 μέντοι, mw) in E. V., has adversative force, and should be rendered by some such word as yet, how- 
ever, etc.—M. 

(4 mer .... δὲ, on the one hand, on the other. Calvin:—“ Notanda autem est antithesis, quum dicit eos 
CARNEM CONTAMINARE: hoc est, quod minus prestanti# habet, dehonestare: et tamen spernere quasi pro- 
brosum, quod in genere humano maxime excellit.’—M.] 

[16 Cod. Sin. has κυριότητας.--Μ.] 

(German :—“ Now in like manner these dreamers also defile the flesh, and thus (dabei=therewith, at tho 
same time) reject the dominion and revile the majesties.” 

[Translate :—* In like manner, however, these dreamers also on the one hand defile the flesh, on the other 
reject lordship and speak evil of dignities.”—M.] 


VER. 


5-15. 17 


Verse 9. 16 Lachm. reads: ore Μιχαὴλ ὁ apxayyedos τότε τῷ διαβόλῳ; but we prefer, with Stier, the 


common reading. 


DT οὐκ ἐτόλμησε, did not dare, or dared not, better than durst not of E. Υ. The former is Lillie’s render- 
ing, the latter that of German version.—M.] 
Verse 10. [18 ὅσ a has distributive force, and is variously rendered quaecunque (Vulg.), quotquot (Laurm.), que et quanta 
(Wordsw.), omnia que (Bengel), whatsoever things (Kenr., Lillie). 


σα μὲν... οἷς 


ὅσα δὲ state an antithesis, which should be brought out.—M.] 


P®émioravracis stronger than οἴδασι of the first clause, cf. Mk. xiv. 68; the former is to understand, 


the latter, to know. 


[German :-- These, on the contrary, revile those things which they know not; but those things which 
they understand naturally, as the brute beasts, even therein do they ruin themselves.” 

[Translate :—“ These, however, on the one hand, speak evil of whatsoever things they know not, on the 
other, whatsoever things they understand naturally, as the brute beasts, in those they corrupt them- 


selves.”—M. | 


Versell.[%xat τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ; the construction of this difficult clause, which has the most 
weighty authorities, is that which takes τῇ mA av pas a Dative of the direction iz which (Dodd., Mack. 
Thom., Scott, Stier, Peile, Wahl, Robins., Wordsw., Lillie), and μισθοῦςεξνεκα μισθοῦ, or Oec.’s 
κέρδους χάριν; (so Wic., Tynd., Cran., Reims, vss.; Grot., Beng., Bloomf., Stier, Winer, Robins., 


Wordsw., Lillie. al.). 


See Winer, p. 219, Ὁ 30, 10, e—M.] 


[German :—“Woe unto them, for they have walked in the way of Cain, and the error of Balaam with his 
hire has drawn them along, andin the gainsaying of Korah they have perished.” 

This can hardly be called a translation; it is a paraphrase, which takes considerable liberty with the 
grammar of the original. Translate:—‘‘ Woe unto them, for in the way of Cain they walked, and in 
the error of Balaam they rushed headlong (Beng.: ‘ effust sunt, ut torrens sine aggere;’ Green, Lillie as 
here), and in the gainsaying of Core they perished.”—M.] 


Verse 12. 21 Lachm. reads αὐτῶν instead of ὑ μ ὦ ν, and supplies oi before ἐν ταῖς. 
grounds the reading “in their love-feasts.” 


Stier also prefers on internal 
ἀπάταις is less authentic here than in 2 Pet. 


[οἱ ἐν ταῖς, A.B., Cod. Sin., G., Syr., Lachm., Tisch. 
Cod. Sin. has thereading οὗτοι εἰσιν γογγύσται μεμψίμυροι κα(" Σκατα)τὰσ ἐπιθυμίασ 
αὐτῶν πορενόμενοι, which Tischendorf characterizes thus: * * improb. yoy γ. usque πο p.—M.] 


32 Tisch., al. read παραφερόμεναι. driven fast. 


The sense is not essentially different [7. e., from 


περιφερόμεναι, which is certainly an unauthentic reading. A. B.C., Sin., Griesb., Scholz, Lach., 
Tisch., Words., Alford, Lillie are all in favour of the former. Cod. Sin. has παντί ἀνέμῳ rapadge- 


pomevat—M.] 


[38 Sin., φθινοπωρικὰ for φθινοπωριν ἃ.---Μ.] 


[German :—“ These are spots in your love-feasts, carousing together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds 
without water, driven fast by winds, late-autumnal trees, unfruitful, twice dead, uprooted.” 
[Translate :—“ These are rocks in your love-feasts, carousing together without fear, feeding themselves, 


clouds without water, borne along by winds, late-autumnal trees, unfruitful, twice dead, uprooted.” 
For reasons see below in Exegetical and Critical.—M.]} 
Verse 14. [*4 προφήτευσε δὲ καὶ τούτοις (Sin, προεπροφήτευσ ε). “ But for these also prophesied Enoch,’’ 
better than “ But of these” (German), and Εἰ. V.—M.] 


[35 Sin.,o κύριος.--Μ.] 


[38 Sin. ἁγίων ἀγγελῶν. German inserts between brackets after myriads (of angels).—M.] 
Verse 15. 27 Lachm., Tisch. read simply: ἐλ έγ ξ αι [following A. B., Cod. Sin., which latter has the variation: ἐλέγξαι 
πάσαν ψυχὴν; and omits afterwards ἀσεβείας avTav.—M.] 
28 αὐτῶν restored by Tischend. in his last edition, after A. B. G. K., while Lachmann omits it. 
(German :—“ To give judgment against all, and to convict all ungodly ones of all their ungodly deeds, 
wherein they have shown themselves ungodly, and of all the hard speeches, which the ungodly sinners 


have spoken against Him.” 


[Translate :— To exercise judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly among them of all their un- 
godly deeds, wherein they were ungodly (Lillie), amd of all the hard speeches which sinners spake 


against Him.”—M.]} 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 5. But I willremind you—believed 
not.—This connects with 2 Pet. i. 12, although 
there the reference is not to historical facts, but 
to doctrines. In like manner the words, ‘‘you 
who know all things once for all” revert to that 
passage as well as to προγινώσκοντες, 2 Pet. iii. 
17.—arag τοῦτο (cf. Appar. Crit., N. 5). It is 
inadmissible to connect ἅπαξ with ὑπομνῆσαι, or 
to take it in the sense of once, formerly, from 
the beginning; it rather has here its usual mean- 
ing, you have heard it once for all and stamped 
it on your memory; you need not any new in- 
struction on that head; but itis matter of urgent 
necessity for you to be reminded of it, earnestly 
to deliberate upon it, and to apply what has tak- 
en place to events as they occur. It is not re- 
lated to the following τὸ δεύτερον. If we adopt 
the reading πάντα, all that is necessary is to con- 
nect it with the sequel, to the historical facts, 
and hence not to take itas at 1 Jno. ii. 20. 
[εἰδότας πάντα. Remembering that Jude wrote 
against the Gnostics (the men of knowledge), who 
laid claim to superior knowledge, and on that 
pretence beguiled their hearers into corrupt doc- 
trines and licentious practices (2 Pet. i. 2. 3), the 
words εἰδότας πάντα seem to have an implied an- 


tithesis, and while affirming of his readers that 
they had all the knowledge necessary to their 
salvation (1 Jno. ii. 20), put them on their guard 
against the pretended superiority of knowledge 
of the Gnostics. See Wordsworth in loc.—M. ]. 
—Huther says on the reading ὁ Ἰησοῦς that it 
unfolds the same view as 1 Cor. x. 4, and that 
the name of Jesus in this connection may be ac- 
counted for by the popular character of a paren- 
etic Epistle.—76 δεύτερον neither—afterward, nor 
—on the contrary (Grotius). Forced is also the 
explanation of Winer, pp. 642, 643: ‘‘ The Lord, 
after having delivered them, did, on a second oc- 
casion (when they were in need of His helping 
grace), refuse them His delivering grace and de- 
stroy them.” Equally unnatural is that of Hu- 
ther: ‘*God did reveal Himself to His people in 
two ways, the first time as a Deliverer, the sec- 
ond time as Judge, that is in the latter instance 
as Judge of the unbelieving who did not trust- 
fully and obediently rely upon His promise.” 
Similarly Stier: ‘After God’s deliverance and 
pardoning there is also a second time surely fol- 
lowing in the case of the unworthy.” No, it is 
said, He destroyed them the second time, and 
should be referred to two judgments of destruc- 
tion, once, when the people, with the exception 
of a few, perished in the wilderness, and again 
to the Babylonish captivity, Numb. xiv. 28; 2 


18 


Chron. xxxvi. 16, ete. The corresponding pas- 
sage in 2 Peter (ii. 2) specifies the example of 
the flood; Jude wished to select a still stronger 
example, exhibiting a two-fold destruction of the 
chosen people. Notwithstanding the former 
wonderful deliverance, the people were twice de- 
stroyed. Had this Epistle been written after the 
destruction of Jerusalem, Jude might have added 
ἃ τὸ τρίτον. [Notwithstanding Fronmiiller’s em- 
phatic assertion to the contrary, we feel con- 
strained to advocate the view recommended in 
Appar. Crit.,note 6. It is more telling in point 
of fact and more congruous in point of doctrine; 
it is perfectly sound in point of grammar, and 
the charge of its being forced and unnatural is 
arbitrary and unsupported by reasons.—M. ] 

Ver. 6. And the angels—darkness.—The 
allusion in 2 Pet. ii. 4 is here more fully ex- 
plained. If it could be proved that Jude had 
before him the book of Enoch, which repeatedly 
adverts to the coming down of the angels in order 
to contaminate themselves with women, we 
should not be warranted to think here of the first 
fall in the world of spirits. But this presump- 
tion is not certain. See note on 2 Pet. ii. 4. 

Their first estate.—Huther explains ἀρχῆ of 
the dominion, originally assigned to them; others 
(6. g., Calvin, Grotius) of their original condition, 
estate, cf. Jno. viii. 44. Both ideas may be 
combined as Stier [and others] do. [In that 
case we have primam dignitatem, Carpz. al.—M. ] 

Their own habitation, not heaven in gen- 
eral, but their own dwelling of light assigned to 
them by the Creator. Their fall and guilt seem 
to have been the consequence of their leaving 
that habitation and arbitrarily going beyond the 
sphere allotted to them. There is no explicit 
reference to Satan, but μὴ τηρεῖν, which points to 
incitement from without, may allude to him. 
Delitzsch: ‘‘They made themselves at home on 
earth and exchanged the power belonging to their 
vocation in heaven with an earthly exhibition 
of power usurped for the sake of selfish sen- 
sual indulgence.”’ 

Forthe judgment of the great day, i. ¢., 
for the last judgment at the end of the world; 
an amplification of 2 Pet. ii. 4; οἵ, Acts ii. 20; 
Rey. vi. 17; xvi. 14. 

With everlasting bonds.—Peter has only 
‘‘chains (bands) of darkness,” cf v. 7. The book 
of Enoch has this variation: ‘‘Bind them for 
seventy generations under the earth until the 
day of judgment, then shall they be removed to 
the lowest depths of fire.” 

Under darkness.—De Wette: ‘In the depth 
of the under-world, in the abyss.” Rey. xx. 2. 
8. At the same time the reference to the in- 
ward, spiritual darkness of the love of evil, must 
not be overlooked. See 2 Pet. ii. 4. [Clement of 
Alex. says, ‘‘that the chains in which the evil 
angels are now confined, are the air near this 
earth of ours, (‘‘vicinus terris locus, caliginosus 
aér), and that they may well be said to be chained, 
because they are restrained from recovering the 
glory and happiness they have lost.”’ 

Wordsworth: ‘This passage is cited by 
Origen in Mit. tom., XV., p. 693, and in Rom. 
lib. 3., vol. IV., p. 510, where he calls this Epis- 
tle Scriptura divina,”’ ibid. lib., V., p. 549.—M. } 

Ver. 7. How Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.— 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


-.--.- 


To the two examples taken from the past history of 
Israel and the invisible world, Jude, again agree- 
ing with Peter, adds a new example, taken from 
the heathen world, of a punitive judgment the 
consequences of which still remain. . 

The cities around them, an addition to 2 
Pet. ii. 6. Admah and Zeboim. Deut. xxix. 23; 
Hos. xi. 8. 

In like manner as these men, τούτοις may 
be connected with Sodom and Gomorrah, that is, 
the inhabitants of those cities; as the sin of those 
cities is generally known, it cannot be thought 
strange that it is indirectly adverted to. It is 
less known of the other two cities, hence the se- 
lection of this word. Bengel refers τούτοις to the 
false teachers, vy. 4, but he thereby anticipates 
the thought of ν. 8. The majority of modern 
expositors believe the reference to be to the fallen 
angels, who, according to the book of Enoch, 
sinned in like manner. See on 2 Pet. ii. 6. We 
cannot believe that Jude or Peter considered 
fables of apocryphal books, like those contained 
in the book of Enoch and the Gospel of the 
Twelve Patriarchs, and which cannot be substan- 
tiated by Gen. vi. to be true, (see Evangel. Kir- 
chenzeitung, 1858, p. 35, sq.), although Jude re- 
fers to them and confirms some of their state- 
ments. [Bengel’s construction, which is also 
that of Wordsworth and others, seems to be more 
natural and less artificial than that recommended 
by Fronmiiller. The anticipation of the thought 
of v. 8, is no valid objection. Jude first points 
out the analogy in general terms and then devel- 
ops it. The very sins of Sodom and Gomorrah 
were those of some of the Gnostic sects. See the 
description of the Nicolaitans in Iren. i. 20; 
Theodoret haer. fab., 1. Epiphan. haer. 25.—M.] 

ἐκπορνεύειν, although not used elsewhere in the 
New Testament, is of frequent occurrence in the 
LXX., where it is generally applied to spiritual 
whoredom, but also to physical in Gen. xxxviii. 


24 for [12]. ἐκ 18 intensive, and denotes extrava- 
τ 


gant lust. The idea ‘transcending the limits of 
nature’ belongs to what follows. 

Gone after strange flesh, ἀπελϑοῦσαι 
ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας :---ἀπέρχεσϑαι ὀπίσω, to go after, 
literally, Mk.i. 20; then tropically. Peter uses 
the term πορεύεσϑαι ὀπίσω, 2 Pet. ii. 10. See 
note there. It is evident that this term cannot 
apply to angels, who have no flesh. 

Are set forth, etc. ; πρόκεινται [literally : lie 
before the eyes, ante (oculos) jacent.—M.] The 
parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii. 6, has a different turn, 
‘‘having made [set, instituted—M.] them an ex- 
ample.”” There we have ὑπόδειγμα, here δεῖγμα. 
The Dead Sea is to this day a testimony of that 
catastrophe; ruins of the sunken cities were per- 
haps still visible in the days of Jude at low- 
water; but this is not the case now, although 
such a myth of travellers is occasionally circu- 
lated, See Zeller Bibl. Worterbuch, p. 510. 

Πυρὸς αἰωνίου should be construed with δίκην, 
(de Wette), not with δεῖγμα. Stier: “ὍΠΟΥ suf- 
fer a punishment intended to serve as an exam- 
ple and type of eternal fire.” Cf. Wisdom x. 7 
[On the construction with δίκην, Wordsworth 
offers the following exposition: ‘*As Sodom and 
Gomorrah suffer the vengeance of a fire that con- 
sumed them finally, so that they will never be 


VER. 5-15. 


19 


restored, as long as the world lasts, so the bodies 
and souls of the wicked will suffer, as long as 
they are capable of suffering, which, since they 
are immortal, will, as Tertullian says: ‘be for- 
ever,” ‘‘erimus tidem, qui nunc, nec alii post resur- 
rectionem: Dei quidem cultores, apud Deum SEMPER, 
profani verd in penam aque? JUGIS IGNIS habentes 
est ipsa natura ejus, divin scilicet, subministration- 
em INCORRUPTIBILITATIS.” Apol.48.—M.]. De 
Wette says that ‘‘subterraneous fire is presumed 
to be beneath the sea that covers the cities.” 
May this not be a false presumption ?—izéyew, 
2 Mace. iv. 48; 2 Thess, i. 9. [On the Hternity 
of future punishment, see Bp. Taylor’s Sermon on 
Christ’s advent to judgment, part III., 3. 6.— 
Ver. 8. Now in like manner, ete.—pévtov 
has at once illative and adversative force. Now, 
in like manner, however—. e., without taking 
warning from those Divine judgments. 

These dreamers also, refers back to v. 4. 
᾿Ενυπνιαζόμενοι, on account of μὲν and dé should be 
construed both with μεαίνουσι and ἀϑετοῦσι. This 
sets aside various false interpretations, which 
make reference to voluptuous dreams, nocturnal 
pollutions, ete. As ἐνύπνιον differs from ὄνειρος in 
that the former denotes a confused state of soul, an 
abnormal influence of the imagination on the bodily 
organs, whereas the latter designates a clear and 
sometimes most significant dream, so ἐνυπνιαζόμε- 
vo. is designed to portray that state of the soul 
in which the ZHgo is controlled and held captive 
by the power of ungodly, sensual impulses. 
Stier: ‘‘Their inner man is benumbed, blinded, 
absorbed by gloomy visions, dreamy and holden 
with sleep. Cf. 15. xxix. 10. 

[Bengel: ‘Uno verbo ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι hominum 
mere naturalium indoles graphice admodum descripta 
est. Somnians multa videre, audire, etc., sibi vide- 
tur; concupiscentia agitatur, gaudio, angore, timore, 
rel. At nescit imperare sibi in isto statu: sed qualis 
est imago in somnio ex imagine orta, talis hominum 
illorum conditio. Hine, omnibus licet rationis nervis 
adhibitis, concipere nequeunt, filios lucis vera libertate, 
in luci expergefactos, perfrui.”’ 

Hornejus: ‘Zam insipientes sunt, ut quasi 
lethargo quodam sopiti non tantum impure vivant, 
sed etiam que non norunt tam audaciter vituperent.” 

Arnaud: ‘* Cependant ceux-ci, comme des gens 
qui agissent sans savoir ce quwils font, comme s’ils 
révaient, pour ainsi dire. .... ”__M. ] 

Defile the flesh, 7. 6., their own and strange 
flesh. The idea has a turn somewhat different 
from 2 Peter ii. 10, to which Jude here alludes. 
Peter speaks of the lust, Jude of its gratification. 
In the sequel also Jude goes farther than Peter, 
a circumstance noteworthy with regard to their 
relation to each other. ᾿Αϑετεῖν stronger than 
καταφρονεῖν; see on 2 Pet. ii. 10. 11. In like man- 
ner vy. 9 contains an expansion of and deviation 
from 2 Pet. ii. 11. The attempt of interpreting 
that passage by the verse under notice leads to 
confusion and forced meanings. 

Ver. 9. But Michael, the archangel, etc. 
—A comparison showing the daring and crimi- 
nality of their blaspheming. They dare to do 
something against the lordship and the glories 
(see on them note on 2 Peter ii. 11), which even 
Michael, the archangel, did not venture to do 
against Satan. The Hebrew Michael signifies, 


ΕἸ 


‘‘Who is like God,” and denotes the humility and 
greatness of this Prince of angels, as well as the 
standard of all his actions, cf. Ex. xv. 11; Ps. 
lxxxix. 7. 8. He is called one of the chief 
Princes, Dan. x. 18; the great Prince standing 
up and fighting for the children of the people of 
God, ch. xii. 1; cf. Rev. xii. 7; 1 Thess. iv. 16. 
In the book of Enoch, where however the inci- 
dent mentioned is not recorded, we read of him 
(as cited by Huther): ‘“*Who (set) over human 
virtue, governs the nations.” Jude supposes his 
readers familiar with this incident. The Jews 
had from ancient times various traditions of the 
burial of Moses, of a contest about his soul. 
According to Oecumenius, the tradition ran that 
God had charged Michael the archangel with the 
burial of Moses; that Satan opposed him, bring- 
ing an accusation against him relating to the mur- 
der of the Egyptian; in consequence of which he 
was unworthy of such honourable burial. Jude, 
like Paul, 2 Tim. iii. 8, probably drew from this 
tradition, the Spirit of God directing him to ex- 
tract the truth from those traditions. It is there- 
fore not necessary to assume here a special reve- 
lation vouchsafed to Jude. Origen, Epiphanius 
and others refer to a book called “The Ascension 
or Removal of Moses,” but that book is doubtless 
of a later origin, and it is more probable that 
Jude made use of oral tradition rather than of 
that book. 

Contending with the devil.—Avaxpivépevog 
διελέγετο; διακρίνεσθαι, to get into dispute, to se- 
parate and disagree, particularly to carry on a 
dispute inlaw. The words διαλέγετο bre τῷ δια- 
βόλῳ show that it was a verbal altercation. Stier: 
“The powers of heaven and hell contended con- 
sequently for the body of the man of God after 
his death.” 

Dared not, etc.—Huther: ‘‘From fear of the 
original glory of the deyil.” Better, ‘from pro- 
found dread of the majesty of God.” Kpiow ἐπι- 
φέρειν, cf. Acts xxv. 18, to give a sentence of 
condemnation against one. Βλασφημίας---βλάσφη- 
pov, 2 Peter ii. 11, words of insult, anger, or 
words of satire and mockery. Stier remarks, 
that even Father Luther did occasionally trans- 
gress in this respect and speak far too defiantly 
against the enemy. 

The Lord rebuke thee.—The Angel of the 
Covenant addresses these words to Satan in Zech. 
iii: Deve. Acts xxii 3522, Timzriv. 14.) The 
enemy himself has betrayed the secret that he 
may be overcome by the words, ‘‘The Most Mer- 
ciful rebuke thee.” Bengel: ‘Modesty is an 
angelic virtue.” 

Ver. 10. These, however, etc.—Jude now 
passes from the particular expression of that 
daring disposition to the general. They speak 
evil, in general, of all things which they know 
not. For ὅσα is not=d, but—gquecungue. The 
reference is to the whole sphere of things invisible 
and heavenly, including the δόξαι. They are 
held by the delusion of materialism, that only 
that is real which may be seen with the eyes and 
touched by the hands, ef. Col. ii. 18. 

But those things which they under- 
stand.—’Exicravra, apparently stronger than 
οἴδασι, is an ironical expression. The things 
they thoroughly understand, viz., the objects 
and means of sensual enjoyment, they use for 


20 


their destruction, and really understand nothing 
of their nature and effects. 

Naturally, as the brute beasts; φυσικῶς ὡς 
τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα, go together. Their understanding 
does not go beyond that which the instincts of 
nature, the instinctive desire of food and pro- 
creation, teach brute beasts. But they sink 
even beneath them because of their own free 
will and deliberation, they prostitute in carnal 
indulgence those powers of the soul which ought 
to introduce them to God and heavenly things. 
The parallel passage, 2 Peter ii. 12, reads: ‘‘ They 
speak evil of the things that they understand 
“μοί, with this difference, however, that Peter 
not only states the additional particular of the 
destiny of the brute creation, but connects also 
φυσικὰ with ζῶα, whereas here it goes with ἐπίσ- 
τασθαι. It is evident that Jude made free use of 
the passage in Peter. 

Therein do they ruin themselves, cf. 2 
Peter ii. 12; Ps. xlix. 13, 21. 

Ver. 11. Woe unto them, etc.—An utter- 
ance of woe, of frequent occurrence in the 
speeches of our Lord, expressive of pain and in- 
dignation, and conyeying the threat of punish- 
ment, cf. Matt. xi. 21; xviii. 7; xxiii. 18; xxiv. 
19; xxvi. 24; Mark xiv. 21; xiii. 17; Luke vi. 
24. 25; xi. 42; xvii. 1. Bengel: ‘‘The only pas- 
sage where this Apostle alone utters a woe for 
three reasons.” Paul says, 1 Cor. ix. 16: ‘‘Woe is 
unto me, if I preach not the gospel.” The expres- 
sion occurs repeatedly in the book of Revelation, 
ch. vili. 138;ix. 125; xi, 14; xii. 12; συ τ 10,16. 
19. 2 Peter ii. 14, has ‘‘cursed children,”’ lit. 
«children of malediction.” Jude paraphrases it 
by, ‘‘ woe unto them,” which threatens them with 
the curse. Jude, in addition to the example of 
Balaam, which we have in 2 Peter, produces the 
examples of Cain and the company of Core as 
types of the mind and judgment of those persons. 
He adverts rather to the order of the matter than 
to the order of time. 

They walked.—De Wette: ‘‘ Their career is 
regarded as already completed, the author pro- 
phetically foreseeing their end.” This contains 
a hint in favour of the genuineness of the Epistle. 

The way of Cain; τῇ ὁδῷ, cf. Acts xiv. 16; 
ix. 81; the Dative of the direction in which [see 
above App. Crit., note 20.—M.], cf. 1 Sam xv. 
20; LXX., Tob. iv. 5. It is not difficult to find 
the point of comparison.. It is acting upon mere 
natural instincts, on the selfish impulses of nature 
(cf. φυσικῶς, v. 10), in contempt of the warnings 
of God in the conscience and in His word. De 
Wette stops at the idea that Cain is here men- 
tioned as the archetype of all bad men. Too ge- 
neral. Calov and others understand it of spirit- 
ual murder by deceiving the brethren, or of fiery 
persecution, so Lyra. Arbitrary. Schnecken- 
burger refers to the moral skepticism of the de- 
ceivers, since in the later writings of the Jews, 
Cain is represented to have said: ‘*There is no 
Judge, no other world, no reward for the righ- 
teous, no punishment for the wicked.” Far- 
fetched. Stier: ‘Selfish, hateful envy of the 
pious brother, because his piety was pleasing to 
God, consequently to God and man at one and 
the same time, the resistance of an evil conscience 
which is defiant instead of humbling itself, the 
root of the Cainite sin from which full hatred de- 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


ED 


velops with fearful velocity intothe act of murder.” 
Huther: ‘In comparing these false teachers 
with Cain, Jude intends to describe them as re- 
sisting God from envy of the grace shown to be- 
lievers.” But this is not the description of those 
deceivers.—[ Wordsworth: ‘Specially applicable 
to some classes of the Gnostics, who dared im- 
piously to affirm that ‘Cain was made by a 
power superior to that of the Creator; and who 
acknowledged Esau, Korah and the Sodomites, 
and all such, as their own kindred.’ See Iren. 1, 
31. (Stieren), 1, 35, p. 118 (Grabe). Cf. Tertull., 
Prescr. c. 47; Clem. Alexandr., Strom. 7, p. 549; 
Hippolyt., Pril. p. 1838; Epiph., Her. 88; Theo- 
doret, Heret. fab. c.15; Philostr. c. 2; Tillemont, 
Il., p. 21. These false teachers destroy like 
Cain; they love lucre and allure to sin like Ba- 
laam; they. make divisions in the Church of 
Christ like Korah. Catena, p. 164, and cf. Bede 
on 1 John i. 6.” —M. ] 

And in the error of Balaam, etc.—Peter 
has, ‘‘They went astray, following the way of 
Balaam, the son of Bosor, who loved the wages 
of unrighteousness.” Jude gives this in a con- 
tracted form. See 2 Peter ii. 15.16. πλάνῃ, ef. 
2 Peter ii. 18; James v. 20; Ezek. xxxili. 16, 
LXX. Huther: ‘“ Vicious life averted from the 
truth.” Not ei¢ πλάνην, but the Dative of direc- 
tion in which, like τῇ ὁδῷ and with ἐξακολουθεῖν, 2 
Peter ii. 15; in the direction of erring. 

Has drawn them along [they rushed head- 
long, see Appar. Crit., note 20.—M.]; ἐκχεῖσθαι, 
Middle, to stream forth like a torrent without a 
dam (Bengel), to suffer oneself to be carried away 
like the Latin effundi in venerem, in libidines. At 
the same time we may think of the meaning of 


yay , to slip and fall, Ps. Ixxiii. 2. [The force 


of the Greek verb is rather ‘‘to pour oneself out 
in a torrent.” See Loesner, p. 583.—M.]. ἬἜξε- 
χύθησαν μισθοῦ The explanation, ‘‘They threw 
themselves into the error of Balaam for hire (= 
ἀντὶ or évexa),”’ is false; so is that of Schnecken- 
burger: ‘‘They threw themselves into the error 
of Balaam in expectation of reward.”’ De Wette’s 
rendering also is very forced: ‘‘Throngh the se- 
duction of Balaam’s reward they poured them- 
selves out in vice.” In that case we ought to 
have τοῦ μισθοῦ Βαλαάμ.---Μισθοῦ should rather be 
taken in apposition with Βαλαάμ, a brief allusion, 
which is easily explained on the supposition that 
Jude had before him 2 Peter ii. 15. The point 
of comparison lies first in selfishness and avarice, , 
then in seduction to unchastity. 

In the gainsaying of Core they perished. 
-ἀντιλέγειν, to contradict, to quarrel, to offer 


resistance, used in LXX. for Γ 1 , οἵ, Jno. 


xix. 12; Heb. vi. 16; vii. 7; xii. 8. Kopé, ef. 
Numb. xvi. 32; xxvi. 10. It was an insurrec- 
tion against the Lord and His representatives 
under the cover of right and religion. Huther: 
‘They lost themselyes in the gainsaying of 
Core.” He thinks that both the parallelism of 
the three clauses and the Preterite of the verb 
favour such a construction. The last reason 
proves nothing (see above), and the first is coun- 
terbalanced by the circumstance that ἀπολέσθαι 
is not used in the sense of losing oneself into a 
thing, of entangling oneself. Matt. x. 6 is nota 


VER. 


5-15. 21 


parallel passage. Grammatical usage permits no 
other explanation than this: ‘‘they perished in 
the gainsaying of Core, by offering like resist- 
ance to Ged and His holy ordinances.” Stier 
sees a gradation in the words way, error and 
gainsaying. ‘The end and the beginning of the 
whole way is illustrated at the very commence- 
ment of history in the case of Cain, the rushing 
progress in the way of error is especially ex- 
hibited in the case of Balaam, the final insurrec- 
tion and provocation of judgment is typified in 
Korah.” Huther. calls to mind that opposition 
to God sprung, in the case of Cain, from envy, 
in that of Balaam, from covetousness, in that of 
Korah from pride; v. 12 gives a further delinea- 
tion of these deceivers, similar to 2 Pet. ii. 13. 
17. [Ireneeus, IV., 48, ed. Grabe: “The doom 
of those who rise against the true faith, and ex- 
cite others against the Church of God, is to be 
swallowed up by the earth, and to remain in the 
gulf below, with Korah, Dathan and Abiram.”— 
M 

τς 12. These are spots in your love- 
feasts, etc.—év ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν, in your love- 
feasts, not, as Luther renders, in your alms, the 
exhibitions of love. The early degeneracy of 
the love-feasts connected with the Lord’s Supper 
is evident from 1 Cor. xi. 20, ete. [Hippolytus, 
Ref. Heres., p. 172, states that the Simonians 
said that their promiscuous μίξεις were τελείαν 
ἀγάπην and paxapilovtac ἑαυτοῦς ἐπὶ τῇ μίξει.--- 
M. ].—Zridddec; σπιλάς or σπίλαξ really denotes 
a rock or a cliff, from σπέος, while σπίλος, the 
word used by Peter, means both a cliff and a 
spot.. De Wette and Huther favour the literal 
sense: ‘‘It isthese who are cliffs in your love- 
feasts, 7. e., on which these feasts split, or good 
morals suffer shipwreck (cf. 1 Tim. 1. 19). It is 
more simple to understand it of the seductive, 
dangerous power of these men. But we agree 
with Stier in preferring the sense of stain, spot, 
because, as he remarks, grammatical usage might 
easily change in words of such near affinity; 
these words having a common root might be used 
more or less loosely, and the parallel in 2 Peter 
favouring it. Possibly both (Peter and Jude) 
alluded to Deut. xxxii. 5. [Aretius: — ““σπίλας 
non solum est glarea, hoc est, ferre species QUE 
MACULAS FACILE RELINQUIT, sed est etiam concavum 
saxum in littore maris, seu lacuum ac fluminum, IN 
QUAM CONCAVITATEM TANQUAM IN COMMUNE RE- 
CEPTACULUM SORDES AQUARUM CONFLUUNT.” 
Mack. (Scott, Bloomf.): ‘The word σπιλάδες 
properly signifies rocks in the sea, which, when they 
rise above tts surface, appear like spots.” Oecumen., 
Theophyl. (ὕφαλοι πέτραι), Lightoot, Wetstein, 
Whitby, Meyer, de Wette, Schleusner, Huther, 
Peile, Lillie, Alford, Wordsworth, al., all agree 
in rendering ‘‘rocks.” It is the only sense in 
which it occurs in ancient authors; it is, more- 
over, in better unison with the other metaphors 
by which Jude describes the false teachers 
(clouds, trees, waves, wandering stars) than 
spots. On these grounds we prefer ‘‘rocks”’ to 
“spots.” —Wordsworth: —‘‘These σπιλάδες may 
be well said to be ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις, where the 
Church looks only for peace and safety, as in a 
deep and placid harbor. The words scopulus, 
gapavé, Charybdis, Huripus barathrum, etc., are 
thus applied frequently to persons. See Florus, 

34 


4, 9, where Antony is called a scopulus; and 
Aristoph. Hquites, 248, φάραγγα, καὶ Χάρυβδιν 
ἁρπαγῆς, and Anthol., 2, 15. 1, εἰς δολίους, where 
treacherous persons are compared to ὕφαλοι πέ- 
tpa. Horat., Ep. 1., 15. 31,— 


Pernicies et tempestas barathrumque macelli, 
Quicquid quesierat ventri donabat avaro.—M.] 


συνευω χούμενοι. De Wette objects to supplying 
ὑμῖν, and translates ‘‘carousing together without 
fear;”’ so Stier. But since 2 Pet. ii. 13 has 
ὑμῖν, and ἀφόβως thus gets a better sense, more- 
over since otherwise σύν would be superfluous, 
it is perhaps better to render: ‘They carouse 
with you, push themselves to your love-feasts.”’ 
It is singular, however, that they not only would 
do so with impunity, but that Jude does not insist 
upon separation. The same objection, however, 
arises at 2 Peter ii. 18, and is not so very diffi- 
cult to be met. [It is to be regretted that Fron- 
miiller has withheld the solution of the difficulty. 
The only one we are able to supply is that these 
false teachers abused the well-known liberal hos- 
pitality of the early Christians by clandestinely 
appearing at their love-feasts. The insertion of 
ὑμῖν is against the weight of MSS. evidence, and 
discountenanced by the majority of versions and 
reliable exegetes.—M. | 

Without fear.—The most natural construc- 
tion is to take ἀφόβως with συνευω χούμενοι, not 
with ποιμαίνοντες (Stier), which would isolate the 
former too much. They are so insolent as to 
dread neither correction nor expulsion, and still 
less the monitions of their own conscience. 
Bengel misses the sense by rendering, ‘To feast 
together is not wrong per se, therefore, ἀφόβως 
ought to be connected with this verb (mozyaiv.).” 

Feeding themselves.—Jude refers to Ezek. 
xxxiy. 2. 8, ‘‘Woe be to the shepherds of Israel 
that do feed themselves,” cf. Is. lvi 11. We 
learn from this circumstance that those deceivers 
set up as guides and leaders of the flock, and 
that they sought the wool of the sheep, not the 
sheep themselves, cf. 1 Pet. v. 2. [Alford:— 
‘Using the ἀγάπαε not for their legitimate pur- 
pose, the realization of the unity of Christians 
by social union, but for their own purposes, the 
enjoyment of their lusts and the furtherance of 
their schemes.”—-M.]. The remark of Huther, 
that there is no other hint of said adversaries 
having filled the ecclesiastical office, is perfectly 
true, but that does not exclude their setting up 
as teachers and leaders. The true point of view 
is displaced if ποιμαίνοντες is restricted to the 
agape and expounded (as de Wette does), 
‘‘They take their fill while they suffer the poor 
(the majority, the flock) to want,” 1 Cor. xi. 21. 
ποιμαίνειν, in that sense, would be an inappro- 
priate term. The sequel also does not relate to 
the agape. 

Clouds without water, driven fast by 
winds.—[ Alford: —‘Driven out of course by 
winds;”’ he reads παραφερόμενοι (with A. B.C. 
K., al.), borne out of their course, hither and 
thither.—M.]. In 2 Pet. ii. 17 another figure, 
viz.: ‘wells without water,” precedes the paral- 
lel to this, while here one is added which is want- 
ing there, viz.: ‘‘dead’ trees.” De Wette, who 
applies the figure to the agape, is certainly wrong 
in saying that these men added largely to the 


22 


agape, without sharing their contributions with 
the poor. No, the reference is rather to the 
promise and boasting of great and profound 
knowledge, but it is idle show and vapour, cf. 
Proy. xxv. 14. They are carried about by every 
wind of doctrine, and cannot satisfy the wants 
of those who thirst for the truth. Huther:— 
‘«‘The figure delineates the inward spiritual emp- 
tiness of those men, who on that account are un- 
able to do good, but it seems also to intimate their 
deceptive ostentation, which has been pointed 
out by Calvin.” The reference to doing good, 
however, belongs not to this, but to the next 
figure. ποιμαίνοντες and νεφέλαι point unmistak- 
ably to their arrogated teaching and leading.— 
Περιφερόμεναι, driven about, fitfully driven to and 
fro. [See above Appar. Crit., note 22.—M.] 
Peter has ἐλαυνόμεναι. 

Late autumnal trees, etc. — Φϑινοπωρινά, 
from φϑίνω and ὀπώρα ; ὀπώρα signifies the hottest 
season of the year; when that is over (φϑίνει), 
the φϑινόπωρον, late autumn, the beginning of 
winter, sets in; the adjective denotes, therefore, 
‘‘late-autumnal,” not ‘‘fruit spoiling,” as Stier 
renders, contrary to grammatical usage. [The 
best account of this word is that given by Lillie 
in loco, which is here transcribed: ‘According 
to Passow (as translated by Liddell and Scott), 
ὀπώρα is, 1, ‘the part of the year between the 
rising of Sirius and of Arcturus... . not so 
much... . autumn as our dog days, or at most 
the end of summer ;’ and then, because this was 
the season of fruit, it stands, 2, for ‘the fruit it- 
self, esp. tree-fruit ;—and hence also the verb 
ὀπωρίζω is to gather fruits. give, again is used, 
1, intransitively, to decay, wither, and, 2, transi- 
tively, to corrupt, destroy. Joining the two 
words, each in its first signification, we have 
φϑινόπωρον, autumn, or More commonly, senescens 
auctumnus et in hyemem vergens (Steph. Scap.), 
late autumn, the fall of the year (L. and §.); and 
φϑινοπωρινός, belonging to that season—which are 
the only meanings of those compounds which the 
lexicons recognize as classical. In that sense, 
accordingly, is the Adjective taken here, in con- 
nection with ἄκαρπα, by Wicl. (harvest-trees with- 
out fruit), Tynd., Cranm., (without fr. at gathering 
time), Castal., (autumnales infructuose), Thom., 
(auctumnal trees without fruit), Dav., (aut. trees 
stripped of their fruit); and apart from that con- 
nection, by Rhemish; Vulg., and its followers 
generally, Dutch, French, Swiss, margin; Engl., 
Ann., Hamm.; Cocc.; Beausobre and L’Enfant, 
maryin; Bengel, Moldenh; Heenlein (errone- 
ously cited by Huther), Meyer, Gerlach, Barn.; 
de W.; Peile, (trees on the wane—‘‘fallen into the 
sere and yellow leaf”), Huther;—Wahl, Robin- 
son, Green, (autumnal, sere, bare), Schirl. The 
same interpretation is allowed also by Zeg., 
Wits., Gill, Laurm., Rosenm., Trol., (‘without 
leaves,’ [which is also Wesley’s version], ‘as trees 
are in autumn’), Bloomf.;—Schleusn. The sec- 
ond significations of φϑίνω and ὀπώρα, however, 
appear combined in the use, according to Pha- 
vor., of φϑινόπωρον to denote νόσος φϑίνουσα ὀπώρας 
(hence Clarke: galled or diseased trees; an ety- 
mology and sense allowed also by Wits., Laurm., 
Trol., cankered;—Schleus.), and in Pindar’s use 
of φϑινοπωρίς. Liddell and Scott do, indeed, 
mark this last word as a ‘pecul. fem.’ of φϑινο- 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


πωρινός, which they explain to mean autumnal. 
But in the passage referred to—Pyth., 5, 161, 
162, φϑινοπωρὶς ἀνέμων χειμερία καταπνοά---φϑινο- 
πωρὶς evidently does not mean that, but rather 
the Slighting influence of these wintry blasts, and 
so it is explained by the best commentators of 
Pindar. Heyne translates thus: ‘FRUCTIBUS 
EXITIALIS ventorum HIBERNUS flatus;’ and the 
most recent editor, Prof. Schneidewin, has the 
following note: “ὀπώρα, ὥρα auctumus, annus di- 
cuntur pro tis que giguntur tis temporibus. Jam 
sensus: Valeas viribus et consilio etiam in posterum, 
ne ventus BRUMALIS {δὶ PERDAT temporis FRUCTUS.’ 
If it be said that the common version requires 
the noun to be taken in its second signification 
and the verb in its first, it may be replied, 1, that 
this acknowledged secondary meaning of the 
noun is its meaning in the only place where it is 
found in the New Testament, viz.: Rev. xviii.; 
14;—2, that the intransitive use of the verb is 
by far the more frequent ;—and, 3, that the verb 
retains this intransitive sense in other analogous 
cases of composition; 6. g., φϑινόκαρπος, applied 
by Pindar, Pyth., 4, 471, to“an oak from which 
the limbs had been lopped; and φϑινόκωλος, with 
wasting limbs (L. and 8.). While, therefore, our 
present form φϑινοπωρινός may not, in the one or 
two instances where it is found elsewhere, bear 
the meaning here ascribed to it, I concur never- 
theless in the remark of Grotius: ‘S87? uswm vocis 
respicias, dicit arbores auctumnales. Sed magis res- 
picitur ἐτυμολογία vocis, ut dicat eos similes esse ar- 
boribus, guarum fructus perit illico.’ This sense, 
moreover, is more in harmony with the design 
of the writer, which is to describe the character- 
istic and inward spiritual desolation of these 
wicked men... . , and it lays a firmer basis 
for the dreadful climax whereby he effects that 
object, ef. Matt. xiii. 22; Lke. viii. 14, etc.”—M. ] 
They stand there, like late-autumnal trees, which 
have no fruit but only dry leaves. They deceive 
our expectations, as the baren fig-tree, Matt. xxi. 
19; Lke. xiii. 6, and are therefore ripe for the 
curse and woodman’s axe. As we expect the 
clouds to yield water, so we expect the trees to 
yield fruit. The former relates to their teach- 
ing, the latter to their life. Bengel:—<‘ Trees, 
as they appear at the end of autumn, without 
fruit and leaves,” ef. Ils. i. 80. Jude thinks of 
persons, who year after year are like late-autum- 
nal trees. This is not a weak, but a very strik- 
ing description, whereas, if we follow the ety- 
mology, the addition of ἄκαρπος would be super- 
fluous. 

Unfruitful.—Not “whose fruit has been taken 
off,’as de Wette, but without fruit [or better, 
incapable of yielding fruit.—M. ] 

Twice dead, not—wholly dead, which is ar- 
bitrary, for the figure is taken from trees which 
have at different times suffered fatal injury by 
frost or from insects. Stier: ‘‘By nature we are 
through the fall altogether dead trees; now these 
persons, having received the grace of regenera- 
tion, have died a second time (2 Peter ii. 20). 
This is the second death in guilt and punish- 
ment.” Others (like Grotius) erroneously in- 
terpret these words of the first (earthly) and the 
second (post-terrene) death, seeing death had 
not yet affected them in either respect. [Words- 
worth: ‘So these men are trees, which died twice, 


VER. 


5-15. 23 


because these men having been once dead in tres- 
passes and sins, and raised to life in baptism, 
have relapsed and apostatized into the death of 
sin, and so have died twice; and because by their 
sins they have incurred the second death. See Rev. 
ii. 11; xx. 6. 14; xxi. 8, where it is said that the 
second death is the penalty of the unbelieving, 
abominable, and fornicators.”’ Oecumenius: “τὰ 
φϑινοπώρινα δένδρα δὶς ἀποϑνήσκοντα, ἔν Te TH 
τοῦ καρποῦ αὐτῶν ἀποβολῇ, καὶ ἐν τῇ τῶν φύλλων 
aroppon.” De Wette illustrates by ‘‘bis dat qui 
cito dat,” and Horace’s ‘‘pro quo bis patior mort.” 
Alford refers to the double death in a tree, which 
is not only as it seems to the eye in common with 
other trees, in the apparent death of winter, but 
really dead: dead to appearance and dead in 
reality.—M. ] 

Uprooted, not trees dug out and thus eradi- 
cated, but such as still remain in the earth, 
shaken loose by their roots, and thus incapable 
of shedding leaves and bearing fruit. Figurative 
description of men torn loose from this vital 
foundation and the communion of the Church, no 
longer moved by the Holy Spirit, having ceased 
to do good works, and doomed to the penalty of 
the obdurate, cf. John xv. 6; Matt. iii. 10. [Ar- 
naud: ‘‘Zous ces mots sont des métaphores energiques 
pour montrer le néant de ces impures, la légereté de 
leur conduite, la sterilité de leur foi et absence de 
leurs bonnes maurs.”’—M. | 

Ver. 18. Raging waves of the sea [Ger- 
man, ‘‘WILD waves,” better than raging, so Al- 
ford.—M.]. The Apostle probably thought of 
Isa. lvii. 20: ‘*But the wicked are like the 
troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters 
cast up mire and dirt,” cf. Wisd. xiv. 1. ἄγριος 
is elsewhere used of wild beasts. The figure de- 
scribes their passionate conduct, their rushing 
against divinely-ordered barriers, their inward 
impurity and hurtfulness, cf. Ps. xlvi. 4. The 
figurative expression of Isaiah has a literal ap- 
plication in the Epistle. 

᾿Ἐπαφρίζειν, properly to foam over, cover with 
foam, foam out. αἰσχύνας, an emphatic Plural, 
as 1 Peter iv. 3, all kinds of shame proceeding 
from the evil treasure of the heart. Huther: 
‘‘Shameful lusts, which they exhibit in their 
wild, immoral life.” 

Wandering stars, ete.—daorépec πλανῆται, 
wandering stars, from πλανᾷν, πλανᾶσθαι, cf. v. 
11; 2 Tim. iii. 18. [Alford: ‘Comets, which 
astonish the world for awhile and then pass away 
into darkness.—Those professing Christians, by 
their profession of being lights in the world, in- 
stead of letting that light shine on more and more 
into the perfect day, are drifting about in strange 
errors of doctrine and practice, until it will be 
utterly extinguished in eternal darkness.’’—M. ]. 
It is difficult to see why the reference to comets, 
which were known to the people in ancient times, 
should be pronounced arbitrary (Huther). ‘‘That 
have no regular course, and depart from the sun 
(of righteousness).” Meyer. Soalsode Wette and 
Stier; the latter says: ‘‘If a star loses or deviates 
from its place or course, it either falls forthwith 
down dark, or, and that is the sense here, it 
roves awhile with deceitful light until it reaches 
the point and catastrophe, which God has ap- 
pointed.” The word ἀστέρες again contains a 
reference to men, that set up for lights of the 


Church, ef. Rev. i. 20; Dan. xii. 3; Phil. ii. 15. 
So Oecumenius. We must not think of authorized 
teachers, but remember that men, in order to gain 
distinction in those Churches, had to render them- 
selves prominent by the light of knowledge; de 
Wette interprets the metaphor of the outward 
splendour of the luxury and perhaps also of the 
authority of those men; Huther applies the me- 
taphor to unstable men, driven hither and thither 
by their carnal appetites, whose life presents the 
strongest contrast to the calm, well-ordered life 
of Christians. But this does not explain the 
term dorépec.—Bengel observes: ‘It has recently 
been discovered that planets are opaque bodies 
that shine with borrowed light. Jude was ena- 
bled to intimate this in virtue of Divine illumina- 
tion.” But the reference is neither to planets 
nor their opacity. 

To whom [better, for whom.—M.] the 
blackness of darkness is reserved forever. 
—Cf. the parallel passage, 2 Peter ii. 17, and the 
commentary on it. Stier: ‘“‘The comets, as un- 
stable, disrupted ruins, may be hastening for- 
ward to a final darkness among the slags of the 
last process of reconstruction.” 

Ver. 14. But of [,for.—M.] these also pro- 
phesied Enoch, the seventh from Adam.— 
Now follows a prophecy of Enoch of these people. 
τούτοις, with reference to them; see Winer, p. 
244, cf. Luke xviii. 31.—xai should be connected 
with προφήτευσε, not with τούτοις. As other pro- 
phets, so Enoch also, the most ancient of pro- 
phets. 

The seventh from Adam, cf. Gen. v. 18. 
There are really only five patriarchs between 
Enoch and Adam, viz., Seth, Enos, Cainan, Ma- 
halaleel and Jared, but Adam is included as the 
first. This designation, although omitted by 
commentators, occurs repeatedly in the book of 
Enoch; 6. g., we read, ch. xciii. 3: “1, as the se- 
venth, am born in the first week, while judgment 
and justice were delayed;” cf. ch. Ix. 8: ‘In the 
seventh week there shall arise an apostate gene- 
ration;” ch. xxxvii. 1, traces back the genealogy 
of Enoch to Adam, not for the sake of embellish- 
ment, but in order to remove all doubt as to his per- 
sonalidentity.” The epithet ‘‘theseventh” cannot 
be without meaning; Calvin thinks that it is in- 
tended to denote the great age of this prophecy ; 
others see in it a secret, mystical meaning. Ben- 
gel: ‘‘ Every seventh is the most esteemed.” Stier: 
“The seventh from Adam is personally a type of 
the sanctified of the seventh age of the world (of 
the seventh millennium, of the great earth-sab- 
bath), therefore he prophesies for this time.”” Men- 
ken: ‘‘The number seven was esteemed in the an- 
cient world as an important signature pointing to 
the sacred and mystery. The fact that after sin 
and death had freely exerted their unhappy power 
during the first six generations, in the seventh 
generation mankind appeared, in the person of 
one man (who had led a godly life, and was taken 
by God to God without seeing death) in a state 
of high completeness and blessed freedom from 
death, has a kind of prophetico-symbolical signi- 
ficance, and intimates that mankind in general, 
after having duly completed its course and fought 
its battle under the oppression of sin and death 
through six long world-periods, shall appear in 
the seventh world-period in a state of higher 


24 


completeness, in a more Divine life and more 
blessed freedom from death. The seventh world- 
period is the Kingdom of God on earth. To 
Adam, the first, was revealed and promised the 
appearance and advent of the Lord, as a Helper 
and Saviour; to Enoch, the seventh from Adam, 
was revealed the last advent of the same Lord, 
Helper and Saviour, as a Judge and Avenger, 
and he was the first prophet, who spoke and 
taught this among men.” [‘*The number seven 
is sacred above all; Enoch is seventh from Adam 
and walks with God; Moses is seventh from Abra- 
ham; Phineas is seventh from Jacob our father, 
as Enoch was seventh from Adam. And they cor- 
respond to the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, 
the day of rest. Every seventh age is in the 
highest esteem.” Wetstein, citing Rabbinical 
writings, p. 737. Wordsworth deems it worthy 
of remark, that Enoch lived as many years as 
there are days in a solar year, viz., 865, and was 
then translated (Gen. vy. 24.)—M.]. The words 
which follow are found almost literally in the 
above-mentioned apocryphal book of Enoch, 
which was formerly known only by fragments 
and notices of the early fathers, but has recently 
been discovered in an Athiopic translation and 
translated from the Athiopic into German. It 
became known in Europe about the close of the 
last century. Winer, Dorner and others ascribe 
its authorship to a Jew of the first century of the 
Christian era; Ewald places its date at the end 
of the second century before Christ. A new edi- 
tion and translation of this book was published 
by Ὁ. Dillmann in 1853, who pronounces it to 
have been written about B.C. 110. The book 
consists, according to the careful investigation 
of the last-named scholar, of three parts: 1. The 
proper and original book of Enoch, which con- 
stitutes the greatest part of this apocryphal work. 
2. Of historical additions for the elucidation of 
several doctrines and ideas from the pen of ano- 
ther author, who wrote not long afterwards. 8. 
Of so-called Noachian additions connected with 
other interpolations made by a third author, be- 
longing at least to the end of the first century 
B.C, The passage in question is rendered by 
Dillmann thus: ‘‘And behold, He comes with 
myriads of saints to execute judgment on them, 
and He will destroy the ungodly and judge all 
flesh in all things which the sinners and the un- 
godly have committed and done against Him,” 
ch.i. 9. Considering that the variations between 
the Epistle and the book of Enoch are not incon- 
siderable, and that the book of Enoch is not ex- 
pressly cited, there is still room to doubt whether 
Jude knew that book. But the tradition of 
Enoch’s prophecy he must at all events have 
known and considered true as to its kernel. 
[ there is an English translation by Archbishop 
Lawrence, with an introduction and notes, which 
passed through three editions, 1821, 1833, 1838, 
hut has been completely superseded by that of 
Dillmann, with an introduction and commentary, 
published at Leipzig in 1853. See Introducticn 
Ὁ i.—M.] 

: Behold the Lord came with His holy 
myriads.—Now follows the substance of the pro- 
phecy.—'HA6e, the Aorist, because Enoch speaks 
in a vision, in which the future appears to him 
as present [really a prophetic past.—M.], as in 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


Isa. ix. 6; lili 4. The Athiopic text of the book 
of Enoch seems to have the Present. 

With His holy myriads; ἐν. Jnthem, i. 6., 
to be glorified in them, as 2 Thess. i. 10, and with 
them. Myriads, literally ten thousands, then 
absolutely, many thousands. The book of 
Enoch in other similar passages with reference 
to Dan. vii., uses the terms thousand times 
thousand, and ten thousand times ten thousand; 
so ch. xl. 1; lxxi. 10. In Deut. xxxiii. 2, Jeho- 
vah is represented as revealing Himself from 
Sinai, shining forth from among many thousands 
of saints. According to Zech. xiv. 5, He will 
come to judgment with all His saints, cf. Matt. 
xxv. 31; Rev. v.11. The term denotes not only 
angels, but also the elect from among men; ef. 
Heb. xii. 22; 1 Cor. vi. 2.— With His, αὑτοῦ. 
They belong to Him, stand before His throne, and 
wait for His commands. 

Ver. 15. To give judgment, etc.—xpiow 
ποιεῖν. John vy. 27; cf. Gen. xviii. 25; to execute 
it in fact. [The term here and in the references 
seems rather to denote the functions of the Judge, 
than those of the executor.—M. ] 

To convict all the ungodly ; ἐξελέγξαι, the 
composite form intensifies the idea, which is their 
thorough and absolute conviction, not their pun- 
ishment; the reference is to inward conviction in 
the conscience. [I doubt whether this interpre- 
tation is exhaustive; the conviction of course be- 
gins with the conscience, but the intensive nature 
of the composite seems to imply a conviction that 
shall bring the convicted to judgment, and entail 
the execution of the judicial sentence.—M. ] 

Wherein they were ungodly ; ἀσεβεῖν used 
transitively, ef. 2 Peter ii. 6. Winer, p. 236. 
The guilt of ungodliness is here made very promi- 
nent, the same word being used four times, ef. 
Zeph. iii. 11. 

Of all the hard speeches; σκληρός, hard, 
dry, rough, indigestible [?—M.], used figura- 
tively of daring, impious blasphemy; cf. 1 Sam. 
ii. 8; Mal. iii. 13; Numb. xvi. 26. Differently, 
John vi. 60. This involves even greater guilt 
than the works which were the result of their 
ungodly disposition; hence they are named first. 
In the above-cited passage from the book of 
Enoch, nothing is said of such hard speeches; 
but soon after we read: ‘*Ye have reviled His 
greatness with arrogant, blasphemous speeches 
of your unclean mouth; ye hard-hearted, ye shall 
find no peace,” ch. v. 4; ef. ch. xlvi. 7. 

Against Him.—‘‘Although they did not be- 
lieve that all their ungodly speeches were aimed 
at Him.” 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


1. Those who know the book of Enoch, with 
its absurd fancies and its coarse notions of the 
heavenly world, must revere more strongly than 
ever the chasteness and truth of our canonical 
writings, and be grateful to the Church for re- 
jecting such clumsy fabrications. In that book 
we read, e. g., of the giants or tyrants mentioned 
in Gen. vi., that ‘*the women with whom the an- 
gels had intercourse, conceived and brought forth 
great giants 6000 feet [German: 8000 Lilen.— 
M.] in height. These ate up all the produce of 


VER. 


5-15, 25 


men, until men were unable to sustain them any 
longer. Then the giants turned upon the men to 
devour them,” etc. The book is full of the 
coarsest materialism, stating as irrefragable facts 
that there are in heaven particular receptacles 
for the winds, for hail, snow and rain, for thun- 
der and lightning, that there is a literal corner- 
stone of the earth, and that the sky is supported 
by columns. Here is something to learn for the 
modern friends of an extreme realism. 

2. The guilt of the heavenly spirits that apos- 
tatized from God is the more aggravated, because 
in their case there was no temptation from with- 
out, as in that of men. 

8. Those deceivers confirm the old, but in most 
instances not sufficiently acknowledged truth, 
that the decisions of the will are not so much the 
result of thinking and perceiving, as, on the con- 
trary, thinking and perceiving the result of the 
decisions of the will. Demosthenes (Olynth., II., 
32) already declared ‘that persons accustomed 
to do mean and bad acts cannot understand a 
great and powerful thought, and that the thoughts 
and intentions of men are the reflections of their 
manner of life.” 

4, In reading the account of corruption given 
in this Epistle, we have to apply the rule belong- 
ing to the prophecies of the Old Testament, that 
the events described in them take place at differ- 
ent times and stages of development before they 
meet their final and highest fulfilment. 

5. **The whole development of evil, as well as 
of good, grows like a tree, the very beginnings 
of which contain the same kind in the germ, and 
foretell the end; but the Spirit of God has, with 
prophetic vision, described to us the events and 
delineated the persons for the future.” Stier. 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Our curiosity should not lead us to seek to pene- 
trate the mysterious incidents of the apostasy 
of angels; we should rather take warning from 
so much of it as is clear.—The necessity of con- 
tinuing in grace, lest somebody spoil us of our 
crown.—Whoso rejects the light here and does 
not walk in the light now, will hereafter dwell in 
eternal darkness.—Whatever is spoken or writ- 
ten against the servants of God, the Eternal 
Judge will consider as spoken or written against 
Himself. 

H. Riraer:—lIt is an old experience of con- 
stant and multiform repetition, that the most 
licentious men are generally also the most impa- 
tient of all checks emanating from human sources, 
that they decry all government and authority as 
an invention of the devil, and abuse the liberty 
of the Gospel asa cloak of maliciousness. [Sen- 
suality and lawlessness go together. — M.]— 
Those who walk in the way of Cain hypocritically 


observe the externals of religion and its exercise, 
but are at mortal enmity with whatever aims at 
the spirit and the truth, and thus end with being 
driven away from the face of God. 

Srarke:—It often happens that the more good 
God does to man, the more man wanders away from 
God, Deut. xxxii. 15. But if men resist the good- 
ness of God, He has recourse to severity and 
justice, Rom. ii. 4; xi. 22. — Unbelief is cer- 
tainly the greatest sin, and the source of all 
other vices.—Heaven is a many-mansioned house, 
Jno. xiv. 2. Thank God that through Christ we 
may once more return to our first home, whereas 
the devils have left their habitation forever, 2 
Cor. vy. 1. 2.—The life of heaven is a state of 
liberty, light and peace; the life of hell is a state 
of confinement, darkness and perpetual fear of 
more punishment.—Sins that cannot be named in 
decency, or on account of ignorance, are yet so 
common among Christians that a preacher does 
not know whether he ought to speak of them, or 
be silent, Ez. viii. 8. 9.—O! the mad blindness 
of men, that will not grow wise by other people’s 
injury, but will persist in their daring even to 
the extent of being made examples of the Divine 
judgment, 2 Chron. xxx. 8; Lke. xiii. 4. 5.—Al- 
though some governments are not what they ought 
to be, men ought to honour in them the image of 
God, Ex. xxii. 38.—True zeal, be it never so 
great, is always humble and modest, whereas 
false zeal is defiant and passionate, Rom. x. 2.— 
Jesus uttered His woes on none more than on 
false teachers and hypocrites, Matt. xxiii. 13. 
They have the heart of a Cain, a Balaam and a 
Korah.—Gold and honours are two hooks with 
which the devil fishes and catches many thousand 
souls for his kingdom, Jno. xiii. 2; 1 Chron. xxii. 
1.—All the feasts of Christians ought by rights 
to be love-feasts, Neh. viii. 10.—Can there be 
anything more unhappy than being rooted out 
and separated from the communion of the life of 
Christ ? Col, ii. 7.—Think ye that the pagans 
were allowed to revile their gods, as God is, with- 
out let or punishment, blasphemed among Chris- 
tians? But have patience, Jesus will summon 
those mighty blasphemers to His bar, and avenge 
the insult that has been heaped upon Him. 

[ Literature on v. 9 :— 

HeEcuHT, JoANNES, Disputatio inauguralis de cer- 
tamine Michaélis cum Diabolo de corpore Mosis, 4to., 
Jene., 1853. 

NIEREMBERG, N., Hxercitatio exegetico-polemica 
de Angelica super corpore Mosis discrepatione, 4to., 
Ratisbonx, 1682. 

BacHMANN, I. G., De certamine circa corpus 
Mosis, Crit. Sac., Thes., 2, 794. 

Henset, M. Z., De certamine Archangeli M- 
chaélis cum Diabolo de corpore Mosis, Crit. Sac., 
Thes., 2, 797. 

Caumet, A., La Mort et la Sépulture de Moyse, 
Dissertations, Commentaire, 8, 753.—M. ] 


26 THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


VERSES 16-23. 


Contents :—Further description of the persons who were the subjects of the Apostles’ prophecies, vy. 16-19; followed by an 
exhortation to edification on the foundation of faith, and to proper treatment of the deceived with a view to their sal- 
vation, vv. 20-23. 


1 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth 
speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration? because of advant- 
ἂρ. But,‘ beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken® before of the apostles 


16 
17 


18 οἵδ our Lord Jesus Christ; How’ that they told you there should ® be mockers in the 
19 last time,® who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.” These be they who sep- 
20 arated themselves, sensual," having not the Spirit.” But ye, beloved, building up 
21 yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, Keep yourselves in 


the love of God, looking" for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 
22 23 And of some have compassion, making a difference:'® And others save with” 
fear, pulling’ ¢hem out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.! 


Verse 16. [1 German :—“ These are they, murmurers, discontented with God and the world.” The italicized words are 
paraphrase and comment, rather than translation. yoyyuoatai, murmurers, describes their views of 
God, hep ψίμοιροι, complainers, denotes their discontent with their lot.—M.] 

[3 German :—* Flatterers to the face” is too free, better, “admiring persons,” which adheres more closely 

to the Greek θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα.--Μ’Ρ]) 

3 German :— For profit’s sake.”—M.] 

Verse 17. fs ὑμεῖς δὲ, but ye. So German, all the old English and foreign versions, except the Dutch.—M.] 
[5 ὃ German :—‘* the words which were foretold you by the Apostles;” too free, better retain the rendering of 
__E. V.: “which were spoken before,” but substituting “ by,” v πὸ, for “of.’—M.] 
The German omits “ how,” which is superfluous; render, “ that they told you, etc.”—M.] 

δϑἔσονται, shall be; so German, Vulgate, Reims, al—M.] ἱ 

9 Lachm. and Tischend. readém’ ἐσχατόν τοῦ xp. ἐλεύσονται. Stier considers this reading an imi- 
tation of 2 Pet. iii. 3. [It is the reading of A. B. C. and Sin; but B.C. omit τοῦ before χρόνου, so 
Meyer and Huther. ἐλεύσονται ἴδ marked * * in Cod. Sin. by Tischendorf.—M. ] 

[10 German :—“ who walk after their own lusts in ungodlinesses.” While it is better to retain the participial 
construction, with Vulg., Syr., it is also better to bring out the grammatical relation of ἐπιθυμίας 
and ἀσεβειῶν, and to translate the whole verse: “that they told you that in the last time there shall 
be scoffers, walking according to their own lusts in ungodliness.”—M. ] 

Versel9. Pla. ἑαυτούς, B.C., Vulg., Griesb., al; A., Sin., Tischend., Lachm., al. omit it. Lillie suggests “separate” 
without the Pronoun; the sense is hardly affected by the omission, fora ποδιορίζοντες may be taken 
with the reflexive force which transitive verbs sometimes do bear (Winer, p. 266), and signifies “sepa- 
ratists,” both in doctrine and Church-fellowship.—M. ] 

[δι Wux ex of, German :—* Seelische ;” the English “animal” on account of its connection with the Latin 
anima, the French dme, respectively answering to the Greek  v x 7. has something to recommend it, but 
is not as expressive and correct as “‘psychical”’ or “ soulish.”—M.] 

[2rvedma μὴ ἔχοντες. German: “That have no spirit,” or retaining the Participal construction: 
“having no spirit.”-—M.] 

Verse 20. 13C. reads ἡμῶν for ὑμῶν, [Sin. observes the following order: ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ 
ἁγιωτάτῃ Ὁμῶν πίστει.--Μ.} 

(German: “ ... . build yourselves further up on your most holy faith in the Holy Ghost with prayer,” 

better render with closer adherence to the Greek: “building up yourselves on your most holy faith 

9 praying in the Holy Ghost.”—M.] 

Verse 21. Π προσδεχόμενοι, “waiting for” (German) better than “looking for”’.—M.] 
Verse 22. tis “obs μέν εἰ οὺς de rite sibi invicem opponuntur.” Laurmann. The opposition should be marked, and I 
adopt accordingly Lillie’s rendering: “On some, indeed, have compassion’’—M.] 
16Q, reads; obs μὲν ἐλέγχετε Staxptvopevous; ois δὲ σώζετε EK πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες ἐν 
όβῳ. A. B., followed by Lachmann and Tischendorf, have three members. 1. ἐλέγχετε (Β. 
edeaTte); 2. σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες; 3. ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες. De 
Wette ascribes the last ἐλεᾶτε to ἃ gloss, or the mistake of a transcriber. Vulgate: “hos quidem 
arguite judicatos.” 

[Sin., €Acate διακρινομένους. On the different interpretations of this difficult verse see below in 

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL, where the whole subject is discussed.—M.]} 
Verse 23. ΠῚ ἐν φόβῳ, “in fear’, not “ with fear” as Εἰ. V.—Sin. reads: “...0w Gere ἐκ--πυρὸς ἁρπάζον- 
τες ovs δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ." See more below in EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL.—M.] 
18 “ Snatch” or “pluck” better than “ pull.’—M.] 
19 The whole verse according to the Sinuitic reading would run thus: δ But others save, plucking them out 
So substantially Lachmann, Tischendorf, Words- 


© © 2 ste 


of the fire; and on others have compassiou in fear.” 
worth, Alford.—M.] 


with the appointments and dispensations of Di- 
vine Providence, opposition to their superiors, 
especially in the Church, like the company of 
Korah murmured against Moses and Aaron, and 
like Diotrephes. 3 Jno. 9. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 16. These are, etc.—Jude, as with up- 
lifted finger, points once more to these ungodly 


men, of whom Enoch prophesied. 
Murmurers.—a7afé λεγόμενον from γογγύζω, 
to murmur or mutter, as well as μεμψίμοιροι, to 
which the former is nearly related. The object 
of their murmuring is not mentioned. Ver. 15 
seems to intimate that it was their discontent 


Complainers.—[German: Discontented with 
God and the world. Alford following the German 
versions: ‘Dissatisfied with their lot.’ —M.]. 
μεμψίήμοιροι, properly, fault-finders with Provi- 
dence, and the lot apportioned tothem. From a 
passage in Theophrast, cited by de Wette, it 


VER. 16-23. 


27 


would seem to be used of censoriousness and 
discontent in general. Bengel explains it of dis- 
content with God. This word denotes the out- 
ward, the former the inward. [Cf. Theophrast, 
char. XVII. περὶ μεμψιμοιρίας and contrast this 
character with St. Paul’s spirit and language in 
Phil. iv. 11. 12; 1 Tim. vi. 6-8; Heb. xiii. 5. 
Wordsw., Philo, Vit. Mos., p. 109, 29, says of 
the Jews, καὶ πάλιν ἤρξαντο μεμψιμοιρεῖν ; Lucian, 
Sacrif., 1., τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος μεμψιμοιρούσης, ὅτι μὴ 
παρειλήφθη πρὸς τήν θυσίαν ἀπὸ τοῦ Οἰνέως. Hesy- 
chius explains μεμψεμοιρός thus: μεμφόμενος τὸ 
ἀγαθόν: ἢ φιλεγκλήμων, ἢ φιλαίτιος.---Μ.] 

Walking after their own lusts.—The 
Same expression occurs 2 Pet. iii. 3; cf. ch. il. 
10; 1 Pet. iv. 8. Calvin gives the right con- 
nection with the preceding thus: ‘Those who 
yield themselves to their evil lusts, are also mur- 
muring and discontented, so that one can never 
do things right for them.” 

And their mouth speaketh great swell- 
ing things.—Boastful, impudent words. Cf. 
notes on 2 Pet. ii. 18. The book of Enoch con- 
tains frequent references to such vaunting 
speeches directed against God and His appoint- 
ments; it has the peculiar expression: ‘‘and 
these are they that control the stars and lift up 
their hands against the Most High.” Jas. iii. 5; 
Dan. vii. 8. 20. 

Admiring persons.—(German: “ Flatterers 
to the face’); literally, ‘‘admiring the faces.” 
The former is to be taken as a parenthesis. Cf. 
Gen. xix. 21; Lev. xix. 15; Deut. x. 17, ren- 
NU) 


τ 


dered by LXX. θαυμάζειν πρόσωπον 


Σ᾿ to favour one, to prefer, honour and 


highly esteem. So Stier, de Wette, Huther. 
The first and third parallel passages, however, 
are inapplicable, the reference in them being to 
God’s dealings with man, and the second relates 
to partiality, as in Sir. vii. 29. But as it is not 
said here whose person they regard, while in 
other places we have always some qualification, 
such as the person of the great or poor, it seems 
more fitting to emphasize πρόσωπα and to explain 
it with reference to sensuality, the leading char- 
acteristics of those deceivers, thus: they flatter 
the objects of their lust, extol their beauty and 
thus lure them to themselves in order to use 
them for their own purposes, not excluding pe- 
cuniary advantage. Cf. 2 Pet. 11. 14, where 
sensuality and covetousness are intimately con- 
nected.— ὠφελείας γάριν should be closely con- 
nected with θαυμάζοντες. [‘*Calvin: ‘ Magnilo- 
quentiam taxat, quod se ipsos fastuose jactent : sed 
interea ostendit illiberali esse ingenio, quia serviliter se 
dimittant.”’—Fronmiiller’s interpretation of Jav- 
μάζοντες πρόσωπα is very far-fetched. The 
phrase is a Hebraism and signifies to respect the 
person in a good or bad sense, to be partial, as a 
judge unjustly partial or corrupted by bribes; 
cf. Hebrew and LXX. of Ley. xix. 15; Job xxxii. 
ὉΠ χχχῖν Ὁ: ΒΕ iixaxcxdignci τον, <Vvaill. wor 
Deut. x. 17; 2 Chron. xix. 7; Job xiii. 10; Mal. 
ii. 9; where itis used ina bad sense. There is 
no need for the reference to sensuality, for the 
meaning that they favoured the rich and in- 
fluential by accommodating their teaching to 
their prejudices and vicious practices is in per- 


fect keeping with the character of those false 
teachers in particular, and all time-servers in 
general.—M. | 

Ver. 17. But ye, beloved, remember the 
words which were spoken before by the 
Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.—<As 


Peter thought it necessary to remind his readers - ~ 


of the Apostolical word in order to protect them 
from deceivers, 2 Pet. iii. 2. 15. 16, so Jude feels 
prompted to adopt the same course. Besides the 
second Epistle of Peter, Jude may here refer to 
passages like Acts xx. 29, 30; 2 Tim. iii. 1, ete. 
The primary reference is to their warnings 
against deceivers, the secondary to their ex- 
hortations to stedfastness and perseverance in 
the faith. 

By the Apostles.—The unprejudiced reader 
of these words can hardly resist the conviction 
that this Epistle is not that of an Apostle, even 
as the author does not call himself an Apostle in 
y. 1. Sepp’s opinion that he distinguishes him- 
self from the other Apostles by the designation 
‘the Lord’s brother” is sophistical. [I fully con- 
cur with Alford that this text is not decisive as 
to whether St. Jude was, or was not, an Apostle. 
He might use the expression, being himself an 
Apostle, and he is certainly more likely to have 
used it, not being an Apostle. St. Peter, on the 
authority A. B. C. K. L., al., at 2 Pet. ili. 3 uses 
the same expression without the 7uov—‘‘and 
whichever view is taken as to the genuineness or 
otherwise of 2 Peter, there could be no intention 
by such an expression to exclude either the real 
or the pretended St. Peter from the number of 
the Apostles.”—M.].—The contrast of Peter’s 
language (2 Pet. iii. 2) is remarkable. Jude’s 
using in the next verse ὑμῖν and not ἡμῖν does 
not prove anything. [For while it is not cer- 
tain that he included himself among the Apostles, 
it is very uncertain whether he intended to ex- 
clude himself from their number. So Alford.— 
M.]. The principal reason why the reference is 
not to the Lord’s self-own words is stated by 
Stier, who says that we have the account of the 
words and works of Jesus from the lips of the 
Apostles, or on the testimony confirmed by the 
Apostles. 

Spoken before.—The term includes both the 
prioruty of their testimony and its prophetical 
character. [This is the reason why the render- 
ing of E. V. is preferable to the German trans- 
lation. See above in Appar, Crit. v. 17. 4.— 
Wordsworth: ‘‘There seems also to be reference 
here to the description of the last days in St. 
Paul’s last Epistle, 2 Tim. iii. 1-6, ἐν ἐσχάταις 
ἡμέραις ἔσονται ἄνθρωποι φίλαυτοι κ. τ. A. Thereisa 
special propriety in this admonitory reference in 
this Epistle—one of the last of the Catholic Epis- 
tles—to the last warning in the Epistles, of the 
Apostles of the Circumcision and of the Gentiles, 
St. Peter and St. Paul. Cf. Oecumen. on v. 1. 
Cf. the admonition in Hebrews xiii. 7: ‘‘Re- 
member your rulers, who spoke to you the word 
of God,” where St. Paul appears to be exhorting 
the Hebrews to remember especially St. James, 
the Bishop of Jerusalem; and St. Jude, the 
brother of St. James, here appears to be ex- 
horting his readers to remember St. Peter and 
St. Paul.”—M.] 

Ver. 18. In the last time there shall be 


28 


scoffers, etc.—Jude here evidently has an ex- 
press reference to the second Epistle of Peter: 
for the words which he cites, are almost literally 
found at 2 Pet. iii. 3, the only variation being, 
first: that Peter says, ‘‘there shall come”’, while 
Jude has ‘‘there shall be.” [See above, Appar. 
Crit. v. 18, 9.—M.]. But the latter expression 
occurs also in 2 Pet. ii. 1. The second variation 
is Jude’s addition of τῶν ἀσεβειῶν, it being, as we 
have already seen, (v. 15), his aim to give spe- 
cial prominence to the ungodliness of those men. 
This verse supplies one of the chief proofs of the 
priority of the second Epistle of Peter. Even de 
Wette has to admit that such a prophecy cannot 
be found any where except in 2 Pet. iii. 3. 
Huther’s statement that these words need not be 
considered as a literally exact quotation, but 
that they may be a compression of the various 
predictions of the Apostles concerning this sub- 
ject, isan untenable make-shift. Consider, 6. g., 
the peculiar word ἐμπαῖκται, which occurs only 
here and 2 Pet. iii. 3. 

In the last time; ἐν ἐσχάτῳ χρόνῳ See 
notes on 2 Peter iii. 3, [cf. Appar. Crit., verse 
18. 9.—M. ] 

In ungodliness.—Literally: ‘After their 
lusts turned to ungodliness;” so de Wette: ‘“‘Lusts 
of ungodliness’’ (Stier), because the ground of 
every lust is nothing but some special ungodli- 
ness, denying, mocking and rejecting the divine 
opposed to that lust. 

Ver. 19. These are they who separate 
[themselves]. Final description of these men 
by a third, ‘‘Zhese are.” 

Who separate [themselves].—Arodvopifew, to 
set off by drawing a boundary, to separate. 
Lachmann and Tischendorf omit ἑαυτούς ; in that. 
case we have to translate, ‘‘who cause separa- 
tions, make factions.’”? So de Wette, Luther.— 
Huther, on the other hand, justly remarks, that 
had Jude intended to express that idea, he would 
hardly have satisfied himself with this one word, 
He considers ἑαυτοῖς genuine, and expounds: 
‘«They who separate themselves from the Church.” 
But this hardly suits the description of those 
men, v..12, who boldly pressed forward to the 
love-feasts of the faithful. The correct explana- 
tion follows from the next verse: They tear loose 
from the faith of the Church, and separate them- 
selves from the Church inwardly, although they 
cannot be separated outwardly by Chureh-disci- 
pline, and indeed all the circumstances of the 
case point to the impossibility of such discipline 
being at that time administered in those Churches. 
[The different readings have been considered in 
Appar. Crit., v.19, note 11, The interpretation of 
Huther is based on an argument, by no means 
uncommon among commentators, but most. objec- 
tionable wherever and whenever advanced. I 
refer to the supposed intention of the sacred 
writers, with which these commentators seem to 
be fully acquainted, although I am at a loss to 
conjecture how or whence they get that know- 
ledge, and suspect, that an appeal to the inten- 
tion of the sacred writers is a convenient way of 
enforcing a peculiar view, or of evading a diffi- 
culty. Moreover, every thing depends on the 
fitness of things, as it appears to each particular 
mind. Huther and Fronmiiller think that if 
Jude had intended to express the general idea, 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


he would not have confined himself to the use of 
one word; but others, with their idea of the fit- 
ness of things, will think that he selected this 
one word on account of its expressiveness. The 
fact is, that he did use only one word, οἱ ἀποδιο- 
pifovrec, and since the Definite Article with the 
Participle Present denotes a habit and state, the 
Noun separatists, or the verbal form ‘‘they who 
separate,” seem to be in exact agreement with 
the Greek, while the omission of ἑαυτούς, sup- 
ported by high authority, leaves us free to limit 
the meaning of ἀποδιορίζοντες to the men them- 
selves, to extend it to others, or to apply it to 
both. We incline to do the last, and are sup- 
ported by Oecumen., Clement of Alexandr., Eras- 
mus, Estius (‘‘Potest absolute sumi, SEPARANTES, 
id est, qui separationem faciunt tam in ceetibus, quam 
in doctrina.”), Bloomf., Wordsw., Lillie and oth- 
ers. The ancient Ca/ena expounds this word: 
‘‘Making schisms and rending the members of 
the Church,” and Hooker (Serm. V. 11) specifies 
three kinds of separations: ‘‘Men do separate 
themselves either by heresy, schism, or apostasy. 
If they loose the bond of faith, which then they 
are justly supposed to do, when they frowardly 
expugn any principal point of Ὁ hristian doctrine, 
this is to separate themselves by heresy. If they 
break the bond of unity, whereby the body of the 
Church is coupled and knit in one, as they do 
which wilfully forsake all external communion 
with saints in holy exercises purely and orderly 
established in the Church, this is to separate 
themselves by schism. If they willingly cast off 
and utterly forsake both profession of Christ and 
communion with Christians, taking their leave 
of all religion, this is to separate themselves by 
plain apostasy.” —M. | 

Psychical (German ‘‘Seelische’’); ψυχικοί, ef. 
1 Cor. ii. 14. 15; xv. 44. 46. Persons in whom 
the earthly life of the soul rules, and the life of 
the Spirit with its higher powers is subjugated. 
Paul describes them as ‘fulfilling the desires of 
the flesh and of the mind,” Eph. ii. 3. They 
either live in open sin, or content themselves with 
outward propriety, while inwardly they are the 
slaves of pride, avarice, sensuality or other vices. 
[Alford: ‘Sensual. We have no English word 
for ψυχικός; and our biblical psychology is, by 
this defect, entirely at fault. The ψυχή is the 
centre of the personal being, the ‘I’ of each in- 
dividual. It is in each man bound to the spirit, 
man’s higher part, and to the body, man’s lower 
part; drawn upwards by the one, downwards by 
the other. He who gives himself up to the lower 
appetites, is σαρκικός : he who by communion of his 
πνεῦμα With God’s Spirit is employed in the higher 
aims of his being, is πνευματικός. He who rests 
midway, thinking only of self and self’s interests, 
whether animal or intellectual, is the ψυχεκός, the 
selfish man in whom the spirit is sunk and de- 
graded into subordination to the subordinate 
ψυχή. In the lack of any adequate word, I have 
retained the ‘sensual’ of the E. V., though the 
impression which it gives is a wrong one; ‘self- 
ish’ would be as bad, for the ψυχεκός may be an 
amiable and generous man: ‘animal’ would be 
worse: ‘intellectual,’ worse still. If the word 
were not so ill-looking in our language, ‘paychic’ 
would be a great gain.”—‘Animal’ has some 
merit on account of its connection with anima; 


VER. 16-23. 


see Appar. Crit., v. 19, note 11 6. I have ren- 
dered ‘‘Seelische”” ψυχικοί, by “psychical,” whick 
sounds and looks better than ‘‘psychic,” or the 
Saxon ‘‘soulish.””—Ireneus I., 6. 2-4, reports 
certain Gnostics of the sub-Apostolic age to have 
said, ‘“‘that animal men (wuycxol) are conversant 
only with animal things (ψυχικὰ), and have not 
perfect G'nosis: and they describe us who are of 
the Church, as such; and they say that as we are 
_ only such, he must do good works, in order to be 
saved; but, they assert, that they themselves will 
be saved, not by practice, but because they are 
spiritual (πνευματικοὶ) by nature: and that as gold, 
though mingled with fire, does not lose its beauty, 
so they themselves, though wallowing in the mire 
of carnal works, do not lose their own spiritual 
essence, and therefore, though they eat things 
offered to idols, and are the first to resort to the 
banquets which the heathen celebrate in honour 
of their false gods, and abstain from nothing that 
is foul in the eyes of God or man, they say that 
they cannot contract any defilement from these 
impure abominations; and they scoff at us who 
fear God, as silly dotards (cf. v. 10), and hugely 
exalt themselves, calling themselves perfect, and 
the elect seed; and they even make lust a virtue, 
and call us mere animal men {ψυχικοὺς), and say 
that we stand in need of temperance, in order to 
come to the pleroma, but that they themselves, 
who are spiritual and perfect, have no need 
thereof.” —M. | 

Having no spirit.—De Wette says the re- 
ference lies to the Holy Spirit, although the Ar- 
ticle is wanting. Huther understands the ex- 
pression of higher soul-life wrought by the Spirit. 
But in either case we should have a most stale 
summing-up of the characteristics of those ani- 
mal-minded men. Surely it is self-evident that 
persons like those here described, cannot have 
the Spirit of God and the new life and nature of 
regeneration. The negative μῇ, moreover, is de- 
cidedly opposed to such a supposition. Had 
Jude intended to convey that idea, he necessarily 
ought to have used ov; for the writers of the New 
Testament are more precise in this respect than 
is generally supposed. Winer, p. 494, sqq. μὴ 
means: I might say that they have no spirit at 
all. We might altogether deny their possessing 
a rational spirit. This is the meaning of πνεῦμα, 
which, besides body and soul, is one of the con- 
stituents of our nature. Hence we may not con- 
clude from this passage, with Bengel, that ‘the 
spirit is no essential part of man.” On the 
contrary, it is that which essentially distinguishes 
man from an animal, a breath from (out of ) God, 
the noblest part of our nature; but as, in the case 
of all natural men, it lies concealed since the fall 
in carnal and animal life, it may be so effectually 
sunk and buried under the flesh by continual 
sins, as if it were no longer extant. ‘‘Conscience 
at last becomes blunted, almost to annihilation; 
the mind is dried up and killed, the higher con- 
sciousness lowered to a state of mere animal 
dreaming, the faculty of cognition ceases to ex- 
ist.” Stier. This state of induration was the 
condition of those animal men without spirit; 
they had almost reached the level of brutes, cf. 
v. 10. [Alford: These men have not indeed 
ceased to have πνεῦμα, as a part of their own tri- 
partite nature: but they have ceased to possess 


29 


it in any worthy sense: it is degraded beneath 
and under the power of the ψυχή, the personal 
life, so as to have no real vitality of itsown. See 
Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, ὃ 2, “Das neue 
Geistesleben ;’? and Beck, ‘‘Umriss der biblischen 
Seelenlehre, p. 35, sqq.”—M. ] 

As contrasted with those men who had wan- 
dered so far from the true faith, Jude now exhorts 
the readers of his Epistle to give the more heed 
to building themselves up upon their most holy 
faith (v. 20). The principal exhortation, con- 
tained in y. 21, ‘Keep yourselves in the love of 
God,” is surrounded by three participial sen- 
tences, two of which at all events are codrdi- 
nated, viz., ἐποικοδομοῦντες and προσδεχόμενοι. 
They indicate the manner how that keeping is to 
take place. The central Participle προσευχόμενοι 
may either be joined to the preceding ἐν πνεύματι 
ἁγίῳ and subordinated to ἐποικοδομοῦντες, or be 
connected with the sequel. Against the former 
connection de Wette advances three reasons with 
which we agree: a. The propriety of the thought 
per se; ὃ. The antithesis to the separatistic lusts 
of those men abandoned by the Holy Spirit (and 
their own rational spirit); 6. The trinitarian ar- 
rangement of the language: to which we add, d. 
The infrequency of the expression “to pray in 
the Holy Spirit,’ which Huther explains as a 
praying in which the Holy Spirit is the moving 
and leading power, and in support of which Ben- 
gel cites Eph. vi. 18; Zech. xii. 10; John iv. 24. 
Should it be thought that this construction les- 
sens the force of προσευχόμενοι, its central posi- 
tion admits of its being joined not only to the 
sequel, but also to the preceding words, provided 
it be not connected with ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, which 
would be something different than praying in the 
Spirit. 

Ver. 20. Building up yourselves, etc.— 
(German: ‘‘ Continue to build up yourselves with 
prayer on your most holy faith.”’) 

πίστις here, as in y. 8 and 2 Pet. i. 1, denotes 
objective faith, the truths of faith considered asa 
whole. This follows from the predicate and the 
verb, by which faith is qualified. The primary 
reference in most holy faith is antithetical to those 
unholy scoffers and deceivers, the secondary re- 
ference is general, and points to its origin, object 
andend. ‘Jude thus addresses the saints just 
because it is a faith of the sanctified in the thrice 
Holy One, in whom they are and become holy.” 
Stier. 

ἐποικοδομοῦντες, to build upon it, and to build 
again, ef. οἰκοδομῇ, 1 Cor. 111. 9. Faith in God 
and Christ is the foundation on which we must 
build ourselves up, éver more firmly in all direc- 
tions, and into which we must ever root ourselves 
deeper and deeper. The term implies both 
strengthening and growth, cf. Heb. xii. 28; Col. 
ΟΕ στ 8... 1} Pety ii. ΟΣ 

ἑαυτούς τιοἰ--εἀλλήλους, although that is not ex- 
cluded. Bengel:—‘‘ Who first defends himself, 
may also save others.” 

In the Holy Spirit.—In His communion 
and power, not in reliance on their own wisdom 
and strength. [We can hardly agree with the 
construction advocated in the text, and see really 
no valid objection to προσευχόμενοι being joined 
with ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. ---- Fronmiiller’s artifi- 
cial arrangement strikes us as unnecessary 


80 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


and a distinction without a difference. ‘To 
pray in the Holy Spirit” is a clear idea, fully 
borne out by Bengel’s references, and in perfect 
keeping with the rest of the sentence. The three 
participles seem to be codrdinated, building, 
praying and waiting being necessary to keeping 
ourselves in the love of God; the parallelism, 
moreover, is perfect, 1, τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ πίστει ἐποι- 
κοδομοῦντες, 2, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι, 8, 
προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος κ. τ. Δ. In this trinitarian 
arrangement, moreover, we have an express re- 
ference to the Father, the Son and the Holy 
Spirit, and faith, love and hope grouped round 
‘prayer in the Holy Spirit.””—M. ] 

Ver. 21. Waiting for the mercy of our 
Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.—The 
positive expression of the concluding caution of 
the second Epistle of Peter, ‘Beware lest ye fall 
from your own stedfastness.”” Compare here 
the repeated exhortations of our Lord to abiding 
in His love, Juno. xv. 4.9. While it is true that 
nothing but the power of God can preserve us 
unto salvation, cf. 1 Pet. i. 5; 2 Thess. iii. 8; 
Jno. xvii. 5, it is equally true that we must do 
our part in this great work of God, and make 
faithful and good use of our gifts and graces for 
our sanctification. Hence John says (1 Jno. v. 
18), ‘‘He that is begotten of God keepeth him- 
self, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” 
‘«Man also, by exercising himself in the word of 
God, may strengthen his love to God, and thereby 
more richly enjoy the love which God has to us.” 
John xiv. 21. Rieger. 

In the love of God.—This is the genitivus 
subjecti, in the love which God has to us, in which 
we are through faith. This explanation agrees 
best with the verb ‘‘ keep,” and the reference to 
the mercy of Christ which follows it. Our love 
to God is kindled by His love to us. Rieger and 
Richter connect the two ideas. 

For the mercy of our Lord.—Cf. Tit. ii. 
13. Since προσδεχόμενοι points to the future, the 
allusion is to the merey by which Christ will glo- 
rify Himself in His saints in His great day, ef. 2 
Pet, 111. 12-15; Heb. ix. 28; 1 Thess. i. 10; Jas. 
ii. 18. Its opposite is the fire (v. 23), into which 
we belong according to our natural state. Even 
the most advanced Christians confess: ‘‘We ask 
for time and for eternity nothing but mercy.” 

Unto eternal life.—This may be connected 
with ἔλεος, the saving mercy of Christ conducing 
to eternal life (de Wette), but the connection with 
‘‘keep yourselves” seems more natural (Huther), 
[Hardly as natural asthe connection with προσ- 
δεχόμενοι (Bengel).—M.|—The prominence given 
here to the Trinity, “‘Holy Spirit, God, Jesus 
Christ,” should not be overlooked. 

Ver. 22. And on some, indeed, have 
compassion, etc.—Now follows a direction for 
the proper treatment of the weak and deceived 
among the body of believers. The textual crit- 
icism of this passage is difficult [see above Ap- 
par. Crit., v.22.16.—M.]. Adhering to the com- 
mon reading, the first question relates to the 
meaning of διακρινόμενοι, which signifies in the 
Middle, to contend or dispute with one, Acts xi. 2; 
Jude 9, but also to be at variance with oneself, Mtt. 
xxi. 21; Rom. iv. 20; xiv. 28; Jas. i. 6; in Ac- 
tive sometimes to prefer, distinguish, 1 Cor. iv. 7; 
then to cause to differ, to discern, Acts xv. 9; 1 Cor. 


xi. 29; and lastly, to judge, 1 Cor. xi. 31. The 
passage under notice admits only the sense to 
distinguish, discern, or separate, which it also 
bears in classical Greek. The meaning would 
then be clear, as given in the translation, ‘‘Sep- 
arating them from others,” 7. ¢., if you find in 
some only a spark of the love of Christ, have 
compassion on them and separate them in your 
judgment and conduct from others. Stier: ‘On 
some have compassion, making a difference, i. ¢., 
treating some mildly, others severely.’’—éc μὲν 
and ὅς dé are often used for ὁ μὲν and ὁ δὲ, Wi- 
ner, p. 117. If we adopt, however, the more 
authentic reading: οὖς μὲν ἐλέγχετε διακρινομένους, 
διακρίνεσθαι cannot be taken in the sense of the 
Vulgate, but either in that of separation (Oecu- 
menius), or betterin that of contention. Oecumen- 
ius paraphrases: ‘‘If they separate themselves 
from you, before all things reveal their ungodli- 
ness.” But it is more correct to render: ‘*when 
they contend with you, convict them, hold up to 
them their wrong and perverseness.”’ De Wette 
and Bengel make dvaxpivoyévovc—to doubt, to hes- 
itate between fidelity to ecclesiastical order and 
apostasy, and explain the word of the deceived, 
not the deceivers. Although this distinction is 
not indicated here, it is evident that the reference 
cannot be to false teachers, who were described 
as incorrigible in vy. 12, but to weak, contentious 
and deceived members of the body of believers. 
Jude from y. 20 onwards, ceases to deal with the 
false teachers, and refers only to believers. 
[The New Testament use of the word διακρίνομαι 
in Middle seems to preponderate in favour of 
“Τα doubt,”” Acts x. 20; xi. 12; Rom. xiv. 23; 
Jas. i. 6; the note of Bengel on vy. 22. 23 is as 
follows: ‘Tria genera enumerat apostolus eorum, 
quorum saluti consulere sancti debeant, ac primun 
quidem genus intellectu laborat ; secundum affectu, 
vehementer ; tertiam affectu, minus vehementer. Ita- 
que I. ELENCHUS sive demonstratio boni et mali debet 
tis, qui eum dubitationibus conflictantur, et in medio 
antipitique herent. 11. Quos1GNis jam prope corrip- 
uit, τὶ rapida vi, quacumque parte prehensi, SERVA- 
RI debent. III. MisericorpiTeR et leniter trac- 
tandi sunt ti, que metu solo, et benigna periculi de- 
monstratione, in viam reduci possunt.”—M. | 

Ver. 23. But others save in fear, etc.—év 
φόβῳ is opposed to ἐλεεῖν ; attack them strongly, 
influence them by motives of fear and terror; 
delineate heaven and helltothem. Huther thinks 
of the fear of the persons engaged in saving 
them: take heed, lest in the attempt to convert 
them, ye be drawn over to their side, and fall a 
prey to their ruin, This yields a good sense, but 
the former explanation is preferable, the same 
precaution being necessary in the case of the 
first class of the deceived. [Doubtful whether 
the explanation commended by Fronmiiller is 
tenable; the word fear seems hardly to describe 
the disposition of bold assailants, courage would 
be more apposite. Then the appeal to the fears 
of the deceived would require διά rather than ἐν; 
we prefer, therefore, the interpretation of de 
Wette: ‘with conscientious solicitude for the 
Church’s salvation and your own,” and Lillie’s 
briefer rendering: ‘In a spirit of fear.” Pri- 
ceus in Crit. Sacri: “ Festinantes et trepidantes: 
eorum ritu qui aliquid ex flamma rapiunt, salvate 
eos: θᾶττον, ut loguitur Artemidorus.’’—M. } 


VER. 16-28. 


31 


Plucking them out of the fire.—Huther 
understands zip of the ruin in which they al- 
ready find themselves. But this use of fire is 
not scriptural. Jude had spoken of eternal fire, 
γ. 7, as had Peter in2 Pet. iii. 7. To that he 
refers back. Cf. Is. J. 11. ‘‘Behold, all ye that 
kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with 
sparks: walk in the light of your fire and in the 
sparks that ye have kindled.” ἁρπάζειν denotes, 
as Huther rightly observes, hasty, almost violent 
snatching away, and indicates that they were al- 
ready in extreme peril of perdition. So Joshua, 
the high-priest, is called ‘‘a brand plucked out 
of the fire.” Zech. iii. 2. Cf. Amos iv. 11: “Ye 
were as a firebrand, plucked out of the burning.” 
Stier refers to wavering Lot, when the angels 
took him by the hang, and Jed him away, half by 
force, from the burning. [Terence, Andr. 1. 1. 
‘Que sese in tgnem projicere voluit, prohibui, ser- 
vavi.”—M.].—The other reading is: éAeare (for 
ἐλεεῖτε, see Winer, p. 97) ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες, 
where ἐλεᾶτε is to be joined to ἐν φόβῳ, and the 
latter to be understood of the caution to be ex- 
_-erted by those engaged in saving. Bengel dis- 
tinguishes the three classes as given above under 
vy. 22, although, as Stier remarks, they cannot 
be well distinguished. 

Hating even the garment spotted by 
the flesh.—Their compassion and saving activi- 
ty must go hand in hand with sincere hatred of 
evil and every thing that is even outwardly con- 
nected with it. ‘‘Let not the saving love to the 
sinner do detriment to the hatred of sin.” Stier. 
Ts. lie 11]. 

kai, here in the sense of even. Hence v. Meyer: 
‘Hate, flee even every outward moral impurity 
and its infection, not only the inward, the flesh 
itself, but also the seemingly innocent trace of 
sin.” Bengel: ‘‘Hate the contamination which 
may pass from the flesh of those unclean per- 
sons to your outward and consequently also to 
your inward conversation.” 

[Oecumenius: τῷ ἐλέῳ τῷ πρὸς αὐτοὺς συνεπέσ- 
θω τὸ μῖσος τὸ πρὸς τὰ μιαρὰ αὐτῶν ἔργα, μισούντων 
ὑμῶν καὶ βδελλυσσομένων, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς 
αὐτῶν ἐσπιλωμένον, ἤτοι μεμιασμένον αὐτῶν χιτῶνα, 
ὡς τῇ πρὸς τὴν αὐτῶν σάρκα προσψαύσει, καὶ αὐτοῦ 
βδελυροῦ ypnuativovtoc.—M. | 

Χιτών, the tunic or inner robe, worn next to 
the skin; sometimes, however, it denotes also 
the outer garb. Here the figure of whatever be- 
longs to the outward appearance of men, their 
mode of life, habits and manner of speech. [But 
the inner robe, nearest to the person is soiled by 
the stains of the flesh, that, therefore, ye must 
hate (Wordsw.). ‘‘ Anime videlicet tunica macula- 
ta est spiritus concupiscentiis pollutus carnalibus.” 
Clem. Alex. The expression of Jude is rather 
hyperbolical than proverbial. Pricaeus: ‘Ira 
APULEILUS, FORMIDANS, AC PROCUL PERHORRESCENS 
ETIAM IPSAM DOMUM EJUS: ac si diceret, non tan- 
tum abhorrens convivium ad quod vocabatur, sed et 
aedes ipsas in quibus, illud convivium faciendum 
erat.” —M. | 

σπιλόω; ef. Jas. iii. 6. 


DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL. 


true pastor (v. 16, ef. Jno. x.1-17.) ‘Omnis qui 
adulatur, aut propter avaritiam vel gloriam udula- 
tur.” 

2. The cure of souls, like the practice of 
medicine, requires a skilful diagnosis of every 
spiritual disease and judicious treatment. Medi- 
cine must be given with reference to the nature 
of the disease and the constitution of the patient, 
but the means used must in every case be ad- 
justed to the end, viz.: the salvation of the pa- 
tient. Seneca: ‘Aliter cum alio agendum est.” 
Cassiodorus: <‘‘Aegris non una causa salutis est: 
alter cibis reficitur, alter per abstinentia beneficia 
tenuatur; hie lavacra mollia, ille ferrum querit ad 
vulnera.””—M. ] 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


The knowledge ‘“‘that thus it must be” (Mtt. 
xxvi. 54; Jno. xvi. 1) is an admirable support of 
faith in affliction.—The spirit of scoffing is here 
represented as rooted not in the understanding, 
but in the heart sold to sin. The increase of 
scoffers belongs to the forerunners of the anti- 
christian time.—‘‘ By scoffing men completely 
break off the sting from God’s truth, which may 
interfere with their life according to their own 
lusts.” RieGER:—‘‘It is only by standing fast 
in the faith resting on Apostolical testimony that 
we are secure against the stormy flood of the un- 
belief, scoffing and ungodliness of the last times. 
The hard struggles of Christians at the close of 
the Apostolical age with the fearful power of un- 
belief and scoffing are typical of similar conflicts 
in the last days before the judgment.—Edifying 
oneself and others is one of the chief duties of 
Christianity; complaining and disclosing hurts 
a poor art.—[‘‘ Qui sibi gam consuluit, consulat 
aliis.”” Brncet.—M.].—The way of separation 
is displeasing to God, Prov. xviii. 1.—One of the 
seals of the truth of our religion is its insisting 
everywhere on holiness. The evangelical Church 
is built upon the immovable foundation of the 
Apostles and Prophets, and not on the quick- 
sand of human tradition.—The edifice of Chris- 
tianity must not only have a firm foundation, but 
ever be raised higher and firmer.—The only true 
progress—going to meet eternal life.—Those whe 
want first to do good works and conduct them- 
selves well, and afterwards to believe in God and 
put their trust in Him, turn the house upsido 
down and -put the roof on the floor.—If our 
building is to prosper, it must not be done in our 
own spirit and strength, but in the Holy Spirit 
with unceasing prayer.—Prayer the surest and 
most necessary means for the building of Chris- 
tianity.—If we have had any experience of the 
sweetness of the love of God, the monition ‘‘ Keep 
yourselves in the love of God” is addressed to us. 
This is done by opening our hearts to God, by 
musing on His great Love to us unworthy men, 
by carefully noting every thing that may hinder 
or further us in love, and by waiting for the 
mercy of Christ.—The beginning and the end of 
evangelical Christianity are alike; every thing 
from first to last is the result of mercy and grace. 
—Christianity is an unfathomable sea of the 
mercies of Jesus Christ. Those who trust them- 


[1. Flattery, pride and partiality mark the] selves to it in penitence and faith will surely 
hireling; sincerity, humility and impartiality the | reach the haven of eternity.—Suffer yourselves 


82 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


not to be deprived of your part in this life, but 
wait for eternal life where the treasures of the 
mercy of God will be fully opened to you.—If 
we have found salvation in Christ, we are also 
seized by the desire of saving others; but we 
should take hold of every man according to his 
own peculiar wants.—Take heed iest in saving 
others thou burn thyself!—[‘‘ But I keep under 
my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that 
by any means, when I have preached to others, 
I myself should be a cast-away.”’ 1 Cor. ix. 27. 
—M.].—Divide the word rightly, classify your 
hearers, although some may not like it.—Our 
life should be nothing but a constant waiting for 
and desire of the life to come. 

Srarke:—O, the miserableness of the walk 
after one’s own lusts! and yet many, alas!— 
perhaps thyself also, reader—walk after their 
own lusts, 1 Tim. vi. 9.—A teacher should deal 
with his hearers fairly, and, as far as possible, in 
love, for love often achieves more than the great- 
est punishment. But if the rod gentleness can- 
not effect any thing, then it is lawful to use the 
rod woe, Zech. xi. 7; 1 Cor. iv. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 
24; iv. 2. Scoffing is a most fearful sin, for it 
makes of God and His word pastime and mock- 
ery; it will rarely be seen that such scotfers at- 
tain to conversion, but in most instances they will 
be seen to come to a fearful end.—Would that there 
were not so many, even of the clergy, of whom we 
are constrained to say thatthey are carnaland have 
no spirit, and cannot please God, Rom. viii. 8. 9. 
—[A sad reflection on the status of the German 
clergy in STaRKr’s time; thank God, things look 
much better there now, and it is one of the great- 
est blessings of this country that its clergy are 
conspicuous for godliness of living.—M. ].—Liv- 
ing stones must move of their own accord to the 
building, 1 Pet. ii. 5. Their architect is God, 
their level His word, their task-master the Holy 
Ghost, who dwelleth in them. Fair building, 
proof against fire and war! Rom. xiv. 19. 

Hepincer:—Where faith is the foundation of 
the Christian edifice, prayer as the fruit of hope, 
raises it to heaven, and love is its pinnacle and 
perfection, 1 Cor. xiii. 18.—If the offering of in- 
cense is to waft a sweet and grateful odour to God, 
it must be kindled by heaven-descended fire, Acts 
ii. 2. 4; Lev. ix. 24; 2 Chron. vii. 1.—Time and 
people must be distinguished.—The same medi- 
cine, be it never so good, does not suit every dis- 
ease. Would that all sick Christian souls were 
treated according to their several wants! Let 
every one in his vocation of love do what he is 
able to God’s eternal praise and glory, 2 Tim. ii. 
15.—In the conversion of the ungodly and erring 
we require special wisdom, that different minds 
may be treated according to their kind, 1 Cor. 
iii. 1.—Fire must be removed by fire; although 
man with all his denunciations is not likely to 
accomplish much unless God clothe His word with 
power to strike men with fear and terror, Jer. 
xxiii. 29.—Sparing and waiting will not do; he 
that saves a soul is like an angel that plucks it 
from the hell-fire of Sodom, Jas. v. 20.—Those 
who would convert others should hate and shun 
sin. Therefore always begin at home in thy ef- 
forts to reprove and improve others, 1 Cor. ix. 
27.—How few are ashamed to walk in the eyes 


of God and His saints in the garb of the old 
Adam and of sin! Shame! Lord Jesus, clothe 
Thou me with the robe of Thy innocence and 
righteousness. 


[Hooxer:—Ve_nr. 20. As in a chain, whichis 
made of many links, if you pull the first, you 
draw the rest; and as in a ladder of many staves, 
if you take away the lowest, all hope of ascend- 
ing to the highest will be removed; so because 
all the precepts and promises in the law and the 
Gospel do hang upon this, Believe; and because 
the last of the graces of God doth not follow the 
first, that He glorifieth none but whom He hath 
justified, nor justifieth any but whom He hath 
called to a true, effectual and lively faith in Christ 
Jesus, therefore St. Jude exhorting us to build 
ourselves, mentioneth here expressly only faith, as 
the thing wherein we must be edified; for that 
faith is the ground and the glory of all the wel- 
fare of this building.—The strength of every 
building which is of God, standeth not in any 
man’s arms or legs; it is only in our faith, as 
the valour of Samson lay only inhishair. This 
is the reason why we are so earnestly called upon 
to edify ourselves in faith.. Not as if this bare ac- 
tion of our minds, whereby we believe the Gos- 
pel of Christ, were able in itself, as of itself, to 
make us unconquerable and invincible, like 
stones, which abide in the building forever, and 
fall not out. No, it is not the worthiness of our 
believing, it is the virtue of Him in whom we be- 
lieve, by which we stand sure, as houses that are 
built upon a rock. He is a wise man which hath 
builded his house uponarock; for he hath chosen 
a good foundation, and no doubt his house 
will stand. But how willit stand? Verily, by 
the strength of the rock which beareth it, and by 
nothing else.—M. | 


Sermon Themes :— 

Vv. 17. 18. Reason, not raillery, the proper 
test of religion. (SuorEy).—The extreme folly 
and impiety of mocking at religion. (WARREN). 

Vv. 20. 21. The spiritual building. (J. Tay- 
LoR).—The principles and prospects of a servant 
of Christ. (A. FULLER). 

Vy. 20-23. Religious errors arising from the 
abuse of ordinances. (Joun MILER). 

Vy. 22. 28. Growth in sin, or the several states 
and degrees of sinners, with the manner how 
they are to be treated. (Jeremy Tay or). 


Very valuable are R. HooKer’s. two sermons 
upon part of St. Jude’s Epistle, vv. 17-21, 
an analysis of which may prove suggestive to the 
reader. He treats of the following subjects: 
Imperfection of Human Language; Respect of 
God’s Word, the Test of Love to Him; Neutral- 
ity in Religion Intolerable; Ridicule of Holy 
things a Token of Unbelief; Three Ways by 
which Men separate from Christ; Our Conduct 
shows whether we are of the Body; The Papists 
Charge us with Apostasy; Comparison of Popery 
with the System of Jeroboam; How the Gospel 
Spiritualizes our Natural Instincts; Extravagant 
Building; Edification must begin from Faith; 
Case of Israel a Warning to the Gentiles; Fool- 
ishness of the Roman Doctrine of Merit; Edifi- 
cation depends much on Good Pastors; etc., etc 


-—M.] 


VER. 24, 25. 


33 


ΠΡ i a ee aes 6 πσονενσι το 


VERSES 24, 25. 


ConTENTS :—Conclusion and Doxology. 


24 


25 before the presence of his glory with exceeding 
viour,® be glory and® majesty, dominion and power,’ both now and ever.® 


Now? unto him that is able to keep you? from falling, and to present® you faultless 


joy, To the only wise* God our Sa- 
Amen. 


Verse 24. [15 é, but, better than now; δέ here introduces animportant thought, and is tantamount to: “ False teach- 


ers may seek for glory elsewhere, but you will ascribe it all to God through Christ.” 


Wordsworth.—M. ] 


2 Tischendorf reads αὐτοὺς applying to the deceived. De Wette says that this difficult reading ought to 


be preferred. 
and yet means them. 
fer to deceived believers. 
op., al.—M.] 

[3στῆσαι, German: stellen, to set. 


crept in from 1 Tim. i. 17; Rom. xvi. 27. 


5 Griesbach and other reliable authorities add : 
, and is therefore the authentic reading.—M.] 


dorf. [It isfound in A. B. C., Sin., G., al. 


He thinks that the author, soaring in devotion, turns, as it were, away from the readers, 
Untenable. If αὐτοὺς is genuine, it would confirm the view that vv. 22. 23 re- 
[v was is the reading of C. G., Rec., Elz., Lachm., Vulg., Syr., Arab., Zithi- 


“The only instance, out of 19, in which a transitive form of ἵστημι 
is translated present in Εἰ. V.” Lillie.—M.] 
Verse 25. ἐσόφ ᾧ, omitted in A. B.C. Sin., and rejected 


by Griesb., Scholz., Lachm., Tischend., al.; it has probably 


(German retains it—M. ] 


διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡ μῶν. So Tischen- 


[ὃ καὶ 8181 Sofa cancelled by Lachm., Tischend., Meyer, Peyle, Wordsworth, al. It is wanting in Cod. Sin. 


—M. 


7 Griesbach and others add after ἐξουσία, πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ a i@vos. Comprehensive description of 


eternity. 


received by Scholz, Lachm., Tischend., Alto 


most authentic reading —M.] 


[Seis πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας, literally, “unto all the ages,” Germ.: 


Tischendorf pronounces the reading well-authenticated. 


[It is found in A. B. C., Cod. Sin., G., 
rd, Wordsworth, al., but not adopted by Fronmiiller ; itis the 


“nto all eternities.” The Italian, 


tutti i secoli, and the French, ‘tous les stécles,’ are the most literal versions. 


[German of both verses :—* But to Him that is abie to keep you inoffensively, and to set 


you before the 


face of His glorious majesty unblamable with exceeding joy, to the only wise God be glory and high- 


ness, strength and power both now and in all eternities. 


Amen.”’ 


[Translate :—* But to Him that is able to keep you from falling and to set you in the presence of His 
glory faultless with exceeding joy, to the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, 


majesty, strength and authority, before all eternity, and now and unto all the ages. 
[9 Tue Susscription:—lovda extatodn χαθολιχῆη. 


Lal: ετελειωθὴ σὺν 
δοξα corto Oeos, ὁ Geog, Ὁ 


δα extotoan. 
λιχὴ extotodyn. 


ροθυμων ex εμοι τω αναξιω δουλω σου. 
A: ]1}Οου δα B., Sin. Omitted by many Cursives.—M.] 


τολη. 


EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 


Ver. 24. But to Him that is able, etc.— 
The praise of God blends with the comfortable 
assurance that God can and will keep them even 
to His throne. 

τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ; this conclusion greatly resem- 
bles that in Rom. xvi. 25. Verse 21 might sug- 
gest the doubt ‘‘Shall we succeed to keep our- 
selves in the love of God?” This doubt Jude 
solves by his reference to the power of God. 

To keep you; ὑμᾶς φυλάξαι. Protect you 
from the perils of seduction, and preserve you 
in love, v. 21; cf. 2 Thess. iii. 8. [Alford: “The 
occurrence of αὐτούς (which is almost beyond 
doubt the true reading instead of ὑμᾶς of Rec. or 
ἡμᾶς of A), can only be accounted for by the sup- 
position that St. Jude writes here, as of all to 
whom he has been addressing himself, in the 
third person, as if he was praying to God for 
them. His reason for not using ὑμᾶς may have 
been his desire to include also in the term those 
who might be convicted, rescued from the fire, 
and compassionated, as well as his more imme- 
diate reader. But it is hardly likely, in the 
solemn close of his Epistle, that he should mean 
by αὐτούς those only.” —M. ] 

From falling; ἅπταιστος, found only here, 
from πταίω, te stumble or strike against, ef. 2 
Peter i. 10; James iii. 2; ii. 10. Stier: ““Who 


Amen.”—M.] 
Cal: TOU aytoU αποστολου tov- 


Hew xat ἢ TOV tovda χαθῦ- 
θεος, 0 pax 
τ [ovuda exto- 


does not make or has not made a false step in 
his walk.” 

In the presence of His glory; cf. 2 Peter 
i. 17. A special manifestation of it will take 
place at Christ’s coming to judgment. 

Set; in that decisive day He will set them on 
His right hand and own them as His own, 2 
Thess. i. 7. 10; Matt. xxv. 83; 1 Cor. vi. 2. 3; 
Rey. i. 5. 6; iii. 21; v. 10. 

Faultless; ἄμωμος, Eph. i. 4; v. 27; Col. i. 
22- Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. i. 19; Rev. xiv. 5. With- 
out the stains of sin, so that even the devil, the 
arch-blamer, cannot reproach them with any 
thing, after they have been cleansed and washed, 
ef. 2 Peter iii. 14; Phil. ii. 15. 

With exceeding joy.—év ἀγιαλλιάσει, cf. 1 
Peter iv. 18; i. 6-9; 2 Tim. ii. 10; Rev. xix 7. 

Ver. 25. To the only (wise) God, etc.— 
Amen. 

μόνῳ, ef. 1 Tim. i. 17; Rom. xvi. 27; applies to 
God the Father, cf. John xvii. 3; Rev. xv. 14. 

Our Saviour.—A predicate of God the Fa- 
ther, as the above-mentioned clause διὰ Τησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ τοῦ; κυριόυ juwv is probably genuine, as in 
1 Tim. ii. 8, and as the Father is called in the 
Old Testament Saviour and Redeemer, 1 Sam. 
xiv. 39; Ps. evi. 21; 2 Sam. xxii. 3; 1 Chron. 
xvii. 85. He is our Saviour through the media- 
tion of the Son, for διά belongs to σωτῆρι, not to 
the sequel, ef. Tit. i. 3; ii. 10; iii. 4. [See Ap- 
par. Crit., v. 25, note 5.—M. ] 


34 


THE EPISTLE GENERAL OF JUDE. 


Glory (and) majesty.—[See Appar. Crit., 
v. 25, 6.—M.], cf. 2 Peter iii. 18; Rom. xi. 36; 
xvi. 27; Rev. i. 6; μεγαλωσύνη, cf. Deut. xxxii. 8, 


LXX, = b33 , Heb. i. 8; viii. 1. His wonder- 


ful greatness, as He is called in Scripture the 
Highest and Most High. 

κράτος (German: power), strength. According 
to Roos, the essential, immovable strength of the 
Divine Being, which fainteth not, neither grows 
weary (Isa. xl. 28). 

ἐξουσία [German: might), authority. His sove- 
reignty, lordship and rule of all things. δόξα 
and κράτος are also found close together, 1 Peter 
iv. 11; v.11; Rey. i. 6; v.18. Each of these 
attributes occurs in connection with one related 
to it. Stier defines the sense as follows: “The 
glorious majesty and the greatness of the love of 
God is praised for the good out of His fulness 
given, restored and preserved to His own; His 
mighty power is praised for the conquest of evil 
unto the victory of salvation attending the for- 
mer.” We have probably to supply ἔστω, as 1 
Peter iv. 11. 

Amen, similar to the conclusion of other doxo- 
logies, Rom. i. 25; 2 Peter iii. 18; so it is; it is 
assuredly true. 

[The clauses διὰ Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν 
and πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος have an important bear- 
ing, the first being ‘directed against heretics 
who separated Jesus from Christ, and did not 


acknowledge Him as the Giver of all grace from 
God;” the second as ‘asserting the eternal pre- 
existence of Christ against the false teachers.” 
(Wordsworth): from the latter, says Lillie, may 
be derived the liturgical formula: ‘As ἐξ was in 
the beginning.” —M. ] 


HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL. 


Rrecer :—‘‘ That which is impossible with men, 
is possible with God, who gladly uses His Divine 
power both in the first wakening of faith, Eph. i. 
19, and in keeping us to the end, John x. 28.” 
“For the good wrought in and by the accom- 
plishment of His purpose of grace, honour and 
majesty are due to Him; for the evil conquered 
in and by the same power and might be ascribed 
to Him. Faith ascribes this doxology now, and 
hope is assured thac there will be abundant cause 
for it throughout eternity.” 

STarkKE :—God can do all things by His grace; 
this is the consolation of His elect and servants, 
Phil. iv. 13.—O, eagerly-desired sight of the 
glory of Christ! Moses desired to see it in this 
life, and I cherish the same desire; but a sinful, 
guilty, mortal man may not see it, but in eter- 
nity I shall see it and not another, 1 John iii. 2; 
Ps. xlii. 8, [ef. Job xix. 27.—M.].—All the do- 
ings of men are evil, if they aim not at the spread 
of the honour and glory of God, I Cor. x. 31. 


acts roa 


ἴηι f ΝΠ , ᾿ 
a rar ‘a0 f ἢ 
᾿ “τ ἢ Ὁ ' 
οὐ, 
᾿ Mie " Ν᾿ ed iy 


ats 


Bilt me , eological seminary-Speer Libra 


DATE DUE 


i BE a Ἢ 


y 
i © 
ὟΝ “ 
τ = 
Be ἊΣ 
Ἃ > 
¥ 


Oo 
© 
=) 
io] 
9 
=) 
9 
ῳ 
ἀν 
nm 
© 
1 


“a i _ a δυο - » 
Le _—— 


“ ᾿ 
5» ; 
eee ON , 
πα δος ᾿ 
~~ : ᾿ 
~ Sema eK 6 νας τ ᾿ 
τ i cya Sey : 
~ 
᾿ 
κα ͵ 
a 
a ᾿ 
ele tinae αν ᾿ 
" ἣν» ᾿ 
Ρ 
= ; 
= "πὰ <= <= ~ =~ ᾿ ᾿ 
SS eer ὧς MG Tn ee antnee 
== = + eek s κω τ: ἶ 
Sew ene LS wi One ae -__ τ 
κα - 1: ~ ; 
2.56 - ᾿ 
~~+« = ~ > ~ a 
= a -- = 
- "» ᾿ : 
- ~ ~ 7 
- ~ = 
a ἐς - - - Ν 
yn Ὰ eee ae Ξ ~ ΟἿΣ 
—— ῳ- πα -- ἡ τὸς Ἂς ~ ς πο “Sa Ns 
LS πρό κδνιυδδκῆμσονς ἢ δοῦν ἦς ὡς «ὦ — = a 
ρος. ey ὡς —— ™— ee - = ~ Ξ - -- _ - 7 “ 
νοι ΠΝ - «.- - -- = - - ᾿ 
= ~ τ τα ee ᾿ — _ = s - ᾿ 
= ek ὡς - ~ - »- - ἣν ᾿ 
ere - ὡς -- - . Ss Swim See πε ᾿ 
~~ = = ῶ -- τ - δ 5. 
τι. - - a 
— — 7 - τῷ “ὦ ᾿ i ee νὸς δ νὰ ας: 
ἰὼν as "- - «οὖ ~ . 
wee ese ee Ak ~ ~——-— -- ἐν ---. pig "τ oO 7 - 7 7 ~ 
“<2 =SS@n- = ee ee ~- " -- ὰ - ~ 
~ <= -_—- - το -.- - ᾿ 7 
- =e ~S-~<.< Ν ~ ~~ οσονΝ ᾿ ~~ 
Se ae ee ~ = - << ᾿ 7 
a --- ee ~~—— 
: rf <= pein ~~ ᾿ -- ΄--. δ ~ - 
a .- ee ΘΝ -- rs J 
NbN OS Si, ~ rs 
= ee eee SS ᾿ - 
ee ss 7 
- - a 
ΑΝ ταν 
“πους σα. Ὁ ee δα “a - τιν = ᾿ 
wR Sewer as ς => 
7 = - - 7 
7 τ ὦ, : 
=~ .—se<>-~_ ν ὌΝ a τὸ 
~——-~ SS == =_= ets a = 
a ὦ = 7 ὦ 
---- ἢ - ὦν - τς - = = 
ee oe _- - = - 
=~ - --- - μ- . =< - 
as me eS = - a> - - 4 
Aon ΡΤ τὰ ee a = 
Ὅπως το δ “Ἐπ =m 4 ὃι 
-.΄-- ~<a is <*#« - - 
aan Εν. ΗΑ ἊΝ 
<<< «> ht 7, as 
a ee =< . 
ek eg, .- - ᾿ν. "- ᾿ me ἊΝ 
Le γον ὍΝ ΑΝ ΩΝ -~ a~ ὧν - 
a eee ῳ ; 
a 2 - > ἽΝ 
ν νος -Ἢ “στο αν. κε 


